Jacqui Smith?

lostinrates

beingjdc wrote: »

I agree, but we need to work out what it's realistic to expect of them, and what it isn't. MPs, assuming they aren't claiming any of the allowances that go into their own pocket, get £3565 a month after tax.

That's not a bad wage by anyone's standards, but it's not enough to run two homes, including one in London - I get by on slightly less than half that in the average month, and I live in a miserly fashion and share a flat in a fairly grotty part of town.

You know, my father and my husband both HAVE to work in London to do their jobs. I have to be based outside London to do mine if i return to work. We'll be managing with no relief for second homes...because it doesn't exist for us!

chewmylegoff

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

It doesn't matter how you think she should be able to classify her main home - if the rules are so vaguely worded as to allow such definitions then she has done nothing wrong. If you're upset with the rules (and I know I am) then its them that should be changed.

she has deliberately played the rules to extract the maximum possible benefit to her.

as an MP she has a moral obligation to ensure that she does the opposite. she should be offering her consistuents and electors good value for money, not trying to get them to pay her mortgage just because she has found a way to do so.

if she doesn't understand that, then she shouldn't be an MP (a statement which, sadly, probably applies to a significant number of MPs across all parties, maybe even a majority of them).

"MP obeys the rules" isn't quite as good a story is it?

MP obeys the rules created by MPs, with no indepent oversight, to be more accurate.

wigglebeena

SGE1 wrote: »

*sigh*

Exactly my point. You think 'public opinion' wants the cabinet to be hanged.

I think you're an angry nutter.

The end.

Wouldn't mind seeing 'em extraordinarily rendered and waterboarded. S'not torture, after all, izzit? Just a 'stress position'. Chuck Blair in as well, that'd be a luvly day out. Icecreams for the kids n'all. Fun for all the family.

beingjdc

lostinrates wrote: »

You know, my father and my husband both HAVE to work in London to do their jobs. I have to be based outside London to do mine if i return to work. We'll be managing with no relief for second homes...because it doesn't exist for us!

But that's three of you working, based in two places, not one of you, based in two places?

If your husband's job was in London, but he also had to work weekends in Exeter, and then you had to work during the week in Leeds, that would be a fairer comparison - excluding your father for now.

lostinrates

beingjdc wrote: »

But that's three of you working, based in two places, not one of you, based in two places?

If your husband's job was in London, but he also had to work weekends in Exeter, and then you had to work during the week in Leeds, that would be a fairer comparison - excluding your father for now.

Agreed, but its still two homes for one household. The argument could be, should her constituency home not be where her 'home' an the rest of her life be....why is it her constituency.

ETA: confusion over father...he isn'tgoing to live with us...yet, I hope, simply that he is doing just that at the moment...his home and family and life is outside London he gets no relief on required accomodation. However,in Ms Smiths situation it is also not her own home but her sister's, so three adults (? not sure of sister's family status)...two homes.

HelpWhereIcan

I just don't like the fact that she has the cheek to play the moral outrage card with Fred the Shred's pension on the one hand, but then hides behind the veil of having checked whether her claim is within the letter of the rules when it is clear that she has broken the spirit of the rules on the other.

If people were complaining that she was renting a an apartment that was too large and expensive than it 'should be' that would be one thing, but claiming to rent a room from your sister so you could get the tax payer to pay your mortgage on your family home (at London Rates) is another.

I find myself increasingly convinced by an argument that I once saw that said that MPs should be able to choose whatever property they like and the taxpayer should cover the mortgage etc on the condition that the property reverts to public ownership when the MP leaves office. At least that way we would stand a chance of getting some of our money back on the sale of said property.

Having said that, the obvious loophole is to put a couple of links in the chain so that the MP's spouse/mistress/friend/slave would buy the property at one price and sell it to the MP at a higher one.

Oh, Flip it. I'm off to live on a beach in Indonesia and rent out surf boards.

beingjdc

lostinrates wrote: »

Agreed, but its still two homes for one household. The argument could be, should her constituency home not be where her 'home' an the rest of her life be....why is it her constituency.

When I was 17, I was volunteering in my local MP's office. On a Wednesday. The phone rang.

"Hello, I want to speak to Ann."
"Er, I'm afraid she's not here at the moment, can I help?"
"Well, where is she then?"
"She's in Westminster"
"What the chuffin' 'ell is she doin' down there, she's not the MP for London is she, she's the MP for up here!"

:huh:

Parliament is where Parliament is, and that's an end of it. Given Parliament's weird hours, there's no way it's commutable from Worcestershire, and doubly not for a Minister, indeed until 2005 the rules specifically said that a Minister's main home had to be the London one, whether they wanted it to be or not.

beingjdc

HelpWhereIcan wrote: »

If people were complaining that she was renting a an apartment that was too large and expensive than it 'should be' that would be one thing, but claiming to rent a room from your sister so you could get the tax payer to pay your mortgage on your family home (at London Rates) is another.

In fairness, she could have taken the free flat in Westminster that's available to Home Secretaries, she didn't have to live in Peckham. Maybe she just likes her sister.

MrFonzerelli

beingjdc wrote: »

There've been several attempts at something like this - Vernon House in St James, Parliament View off Lambeth Bridge, and so on. It falls victim to the problem that it's always cheaper in the end to sell off the expensive London property, and carry on paying them to make their own arrangements.

The other argument, though I'm not 100% convinced of it, is that it is good for MPs to have to negotiate the minefield of the housing market, utility bills, phone suppliers, nuisance neighbours, transport facilities, and so on, to keep them in touch with the real world. Putting them into a student hall of residence with all the other MPs would make it even more of a club and less connected to ordinary voters than the present set-up.

The only practical way to do it is to convert the nuclear bunker, really.

We could give them all a fixed amount for second home rent (to be included in wages rather than and expenses).
Hypocrisy and lack of morals are a media favourite.

Spending a bit to prevent corruption and allow the media to concentrate on the billions rather than 20k would be worth while IMO.

A nuclear bunker is also an equally good idea.;)

lostinrates

beingjdc wrote: »

When I was 17, I was volunteering in my local MP's office. On a Wednesday. The phone rang.

"Hello, I want to speak to Ann."
"Er, I'm afraid she's not here at the moment, can I help?"
"Well, where is she then?"
"She's in Westminster"
"What the chuffin' 'ell is she doin' down there, she's not the MP for London is she, she's the MP for up here!"

:huh:

Parliament is where Parliament is, and that's an end of it. Given Parliament's weird hours, there's no way it's commutable from Worcestershire, and doubly not for a Minister, indeed until 2005 the rules specifically said that a Minister's main home had to be the London one, whether they wanted it to be or not.

beingjdc, I am not arguing she should not be in London, not at all. I sympathise with any household, like that of mine and my parent's, whose work is elsewhere from home. but the point is that on that wage, or similar, other people do it, by choice or otherwise. My DH could do a different job, as could I, but so could politicians Its a choice we have made and are happy with, but its not true to say she couldn't do it on her pay: she could. Or have taken the free flat, or have claimed less for the lodgings at her sister's...there are a few other options here