London rents to be capped at £1250

CLAPTON

The fiscal state of the country is only one of several concerns.

I'm equally concerned about the state of education, health, crime, unemployment, roads etc

CLAPTON

carolt wrote: »

Oh come off it - they earn 65K plus expenses - hardly hard up. And nothing to stop their spouses working, too.

In the days when politics was only for those of private means, I believe they weren't paid at all.

TBH, if it means that politics attracts those who are passionate about making a difference, rather than just making a quick buck, then it's a damn good thing.

the country is being ruined by people who are passionate about making a difference..... loads of well intentioned but ill thought out legislation with very serious un-intended consequences


I'ld much rather have some mature people who have been reasonably successful in another field of endevour as our MPs ... and then unfortunately 64k paying lots of your own expenses, whilst popular with the press, isn't a very attractive financial proposition.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

The fiscal state of the country is only one of several concerns.

I'm equally concerned about the state of education, health, crime, unemployment, roads etc

You can only spend more taxpayers' money on resolving the latter if you resolve the former.

julieq

Generali wrote: »

You can only spend more taxpayers' money on resolving the latter if you resolve the former.

Looking from the private sector, we have to do more with less constantly, it's a fact of life. It's done with productivity and efficiency improvements, and the hard measure of success or failure is in growth of the bottom line. Investments are very hard to get and have to be fought for.

So why should it be necessary to spend more in the public sector to make improvements? Is it really impossible to conceive that there could be inefficiencies or productivity improvements to make?

Of course to find out, you do have the political hot potato of getting past the public sector unions and well entrenched delusions of sufficiency.

It's our money paying for these services. Why should the first reaction always be that more money is required to do more, i.e. more demanded from us, instead of demanding more from the service providers for the same money? There is precious little evidence from 12 years of new Labour that spending more improves the outcome.

To be brutally frank, modernising the public sector would bring far more benefits than all the cast-the-first-stone mob hysteria around MP expenses.

bo_drinker

Time now to build an appartment block to use as a hotel just for MP's,(maybe one there already ??) it has been mentioned here before. Surely in the long run this is the way to go. Prices need to be kept to a sensible level and given a place with good facilities there is a dome down there going begging. Or is someone using it for something ??

Generali

julieq wrote: »

Looking from the private sector, we have to do more with less constantly, it's a fact of life. It's done with productivity and efficiency improvements, and the hard measure of success or failure is in growth of the bottom line. Investments are very hard to get and have to be fought for.

So why should it be necessary to spend more in the public sector to make improvements? Is it really impossible to conceive that there could be inefficiencies or productivity improvements to make?

Of course to find out, you do have the political hot potato of getting past the public sector unions and well entrenched delusions of sufficiency.

It's our money paying for these services. Why should the first reaction always be that more money is required to do more, i.e. more demanded from us, instead of demanding more from the service providers for the same money? There is precious little evidence from 12 years of new Labour that spending more improves the outcome.

To be brutally frank, modernising the public sector would bring far more benefits than all the cast-the-first-stone mob hysteria around MP expenses.

Spot on julieq IMO

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

You can only spend more taxpayers' money on resolving the latter if you resolve the former.

many may not know but you do... that in a recession government spending will reduce unemployment whereas an obsession with debt reduction may well lead to a massive depression.

I fully accept that it would be better if there was less debt, debt reduction is not a pre-requisite for a sucessful economy or a better health service etc.

Andy_L

tomterm8 wrote: »

A certain science fiction author suggested that at the start of office, every single asset an MP owns should be confiscated. At the end of office, the MP should get a percentage of any government surplus, which - if they manage things properly - could amount to tens of millions of pounds. If they don't manage things properly, they leave office with nowt.

Any income they earn during their term of office, would of course be confiscated by the state.

but then they would become obsessed with ensuring a government surplus rather then doing what's "in the best interests of the country". See any similaraties with bankers bonuses distorting their decision making procesess?

macaque_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Still harping on about it carolt.....
Your thread on the same subject already get locked and reported to abuse, after the previous thread on the same subject was moved to DT.
This will make no difference. MP's are a tiny percentage of sales.... maybe 8 or so a month out of 75,000 sales a month.
It's utterly irrelevant.
As for MP's suddenly becoming all sympathetic about rents..... No they won't. They'll just pick up a couple of hours a month of consulting work at 1K an hour to pay the difference.
Doubtless landlords will treat them with kid gloves, to prove how great they are too.
So instead of being independant, they will now become more dependant on corporate special interests. Way to go, great idea!!!!
Law of unintended consequences and all that....

Carolt hit the nail on the head and you are missing the point.

Why have tax rules been so favourable to BTLs? Why were mortgages given with self certification, at 10X lending multiples, the unemployed etc? Why did the government permit uncontrolled immigration? Why were banks allowed to operate beyond the reach regulation? Why have interest rates been kept at 1/2% whilst the currency slides? The list goes on.

The answer to all these questions is simple. BTL has been the cottage industry of the House of Commons. MPs from George Galloway on the left to Ian Clappison on the right have spent their time building up little property empires. This has influenced government policy in favour of property speculation.

Now that the gravy train has been cancelled, MPs will have to get used to renting (like many of us). In this climate, you can be sure that they will be much less sympathetic towards such practices as wild property speculation, hoarding empty properties, anti social behaviour by some BTLs etc.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

many may not know but you do... that in a recession government spending will reduce unemployment whereas an obsession with debt reduction may well lead to a massive depression.

I fully accept that it would be better if there was less debt, debt reduction is not a pre-requisite for a sucessful economy or a better health service etc.

Maybe. IMO it depends on the reason for GDP falling.

Let's think about what has caused the fall in output this time around.

IMHO there are two things:

- Asset price bubble has caused investment to be misdirected towards housing leaving a lack of investment in more productive areas of the economy
- Banks not lending for investment

Normally, counter cyclical spending by Government to prop up employment is a good idea. Right now, when the UK economy needs more investment in productive capacity to repair the damage done by a huge house price bubble misdirecting investment funds the last thing the UK needs is for private borrowing to be crowded out by public borrowing.