MPs at it again - Channel 4

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not talking about putting them in barracks and you have purposely confused my point to make your own, soemwhat bizzare point pretending I want army squaddies ruling the country.

I just don't see why someone needs a family home, for an arrangement to cover them while they are away from their family.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I just cannot understand why you believe MPs should be entitled to more than pretty much anyone else, simply because they are MPs.

I would suspect you have little knowledge or experience of 'normal' company rules on expenses whilst staying away from one's main base.

It's relatively unusual for people to have two 'main' working locations and the rules need to fit the circumstances and again I doubt you have any experience or insight into what would be considered reasonable by commercial companies.

But if you are content for parliament to be stuffed with rich posh boys then so beit.

Graham_Devon

Getting a bit insultive there old chap. You still haven't answered any of my questions though, bar telling me only rich boys would be MPs unless they can "make the most" out of expenses.

I don't personally believe that to be true.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Getting a bit insultive there old chap. You still haven't answered any of my questions though, bar telling me only rich boys would be MPs unless they can "make the most" out of expenses.

I don't personally believe that to be true.

My key points are

-jobs that requires two homes on a substantial and continuing basic should properly provide for one of them (the other being the responsibility of the employee).

-the property ought to be comparable with a reasonable middle class person would expect... bedrooms appropriate to the family situation, a lounge etc.

-on the specific issue of MPs renting out a second home in London; that seems reasonable to me.
if the tenant is another MP and the rent charged to the taxpayers is comparable with the going rate I see nothing wrong with that.

it in no way disadvantges the taxpayers if the rent being charged is equal to or less than would be paid to another private landlord.

-and although off topic, but as I've said before I would be happy for MPs to be paid substantially more than at present.

chewmylegoff

Look at the state of the talent pool of MPs at the moment. I know £60k sounds a lot to some people, but it is a pittance for a job as important as MP. As a result MPs are a load of useless tools because anyone actually capable of being a good MP can probably get paid three times as much somewhere else.

Now imagine how much worse MPs would be if they didn't get a housing allowance. Renting a London property is going to cost you at least £30,000 (out of your gross salary) so you' basically be on £30k and responsible for running the country.

Imagine the morons who would apply for that job...

Wookster

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Look at the state of the talent pool of MPs at the moment. I know £60k sounds a lot to some people, but it is a pittance for a job as important as MP. As a result MPs are a load of useless tools because anyone actually capable of being a good MP can probably get paid three times as much somewhere else.

Now imagine how much worse MPs would be if they didn't get a housing allowance. Renting a London property is going to cost you at least £30,000 (out of your gross salary) so you' basically be on £30k and responsible for running the country.

Imagine the morons who would apply for that job...

I agree, for many conservative MPs who actually know about economics (i.e. the skills we actually need to get the country moving forward) think about the careers they are leaving behind (even if temporarily) in order to go into government.

I'll bet we're talking 6 figure salaries at least!

Andy_L

ll

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In what other situation do our public service have such luxuries, whereby they get something over and above what the average person requires?

The army get barracks, and houses if they have a family.

If they're posted to the MoD in London they get a flat (possibly shared between 2 depending on rank/size of flat) as there's no barrack accommodation spare in London. If they are there "part time" like MPs are (ie working in 2 places) then they will, like MPs, only pay one lot of accomodation costs

John_Pierpoint

I don't understand why MP's cannot claim the INTEREST portion of a mortgage used to finance a second home inside (say) the North & South circular ring?

Unfortunately it would encourage them to print money to devalue the debt.

Andy_L

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

I don't understand why MP's cannot claim the INTEREST portion of a mortgage used to finance a second home inside (say) the North & South circular ring?

Unfortunately it would encourage them to print money to devalue the debt.

Because enough vocal people were outraged that some were able to make money on the capital gain, despite it costing the tax payer no more than paying their rent.

robmatic

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Look at the state of the talent pool of MPs at the moment. I know £60k sounds a lot to some people, but it is a pittance for a job as important as MP. As a result MPs are a load of useless tools because anyone actually capable of being a good MP can probably get paid three times as much somewhere else.

Now imagine how much worse MPs would be if they didn't get a housing allowance. Renting a London property is going to cost you at least £30,000 (out of your gross salary) so you' basically be on £30k and responsible for running the country.

Imagine the morons who would apply for that job...

What qualifications do you need to be an MP? How many of our 650 MPs have an important role?

A cabinet minister should be well remunerated but what about a backbench MP who does nothing else but turn up occasionally and vote in accordance with the party whip?

MacMickster

robmatic wrote: »

What qualifications do you need to be an MP? How many of our 650 MPs have an important role?

A cabinet minister should be well remunerated but what about a backbench MP who does nothing else but turn up occasionally and vote in accordance with the party whip?

A very good point. The majority of "work" that most MPs do is representing their constituents and helping to resolve their problems.

Modern communications should mean that teleconferencing facilities could be installed in each MP's constituency office. Add in a secure means of voting electronically and the necessity for visits to London should reduce substantially for most MPs. A room in a Travel Lodge should be adequate for those occasions.