MPs at it again - Channel 4

Graham_Devon

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...

But they wouldn't have to pay their own accomodation.

The point seems to be getting continually blurred, purposely. No ones asking them to pay for their own accomodation. People are saying, if they wish to have something over and above a 1-2 bed flat, then they can pay for it.

I don't see how anyone can not take issue with MPs renting to each other in the same area purely to take the most they can from the taxpayer.

CLAPTON

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?

Cabinet ministers are selected from the pool of MPs (except for the odd Lord) so in my view we need able well qualified MPs so we can have good cabinet minister.

N1AK

SailorSam wrote: »

A lot of people take on jobs were they have to be away from their families. Probably they don't like but accept it as part of the job.
Our armed forces id the one that first comes to mind but then you have men working on oil rigs and numerous others.

And guess what; members of the armed forces often (all 4 I know) buy property while serving and rent it out as an investment while living in accommodation provided by work.

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

And guess what; members of the armed forces often (all 4 I know) buy property while serving and rent it out as an investment while living in accommodation provided by work.

Do they rent them to their mates who are paying the rent from the public purse?

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Do they rent them to their mates who are paying the rent from the public purse?

why would that matter if the rent was comparable to that of comparable property that the mate was already paying?

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

why would that matter if the rent was comparable to that of comparable property that the mate was already paying?

You may find it acceptable but on the basis this is not transparent I personally don't for people holding public office.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

You may find it acceptable but on the basis this is not transparent I personally don't for people holding public office.

there is some merit is additional transparency even if it costs us a lot more (which is may or may not).

Andy_L

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't see how anyone can not take issue with MPs renting to each other in the same area purely to take the most they can from the taxpayer.

becasue:

a. it makes no difference to the cost to the taxpayer if they rent from another MP or a private landlord

b. until the change to the rules they could claim the mortgage interest, now they can only claim rent. Thus they have had to move out & rent instead (or suck up the cost of accomodation themselves) ISTR an newspaper article (Telegraph or Independant?) in which an MP pointed out that he now claimed more in rent than he had in mortgage interest.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

I think the problem is that because some MPs have abused the system asnd continue to do so there is a public wish to see them all suffer a little.

Broadly I agree with you that MPs have a responsible job and should be given a good salary comparable with a responsible manager in the civil service (say median Grade 6).

As far as possible, we need to ensure that people take the job for the right reasons. If its seen as a poorly paid job it will not attract good people, nor will it attract people who are competent enough to be cabinet ministers. Equally we do not want it done by those who see it as a part time job. So I think a good but not excessive salary is needed, together with a firm commitment to be employed full time.

Temptation to manipulate expenses needs to be removed. The only way of doing this is for the Government to pay the accommodation costs directly.

MPs should be assumed to live in their constituencies and if they live further than an hour travel from the constituency or Westminster, they should be eligible for a relocation package to move to live in the constituency based on typical public sector relocation terms.

The default position should be that MPs whose family home is not within one hour travel of Westminster should be provided with a good standard of accommodation which should be paid directly by the Government (as many firms do). The "standard" of accommodation should be specified by the Government.

I have no wish for my MP to be forced to live in a cheap dive and I do not mind if he gets a hotel room when he works after about 9pm, but he should not profit from it.

The Government should procure a mixture of secure flats in a furnished block in Westminster, some hotel accommodation, and some private furnished flats. MPs should have a choice of the type of accommodation they have but the Government should choose it and pay for it.

If an MP wishes to choose his own accommodation because he likes the flat another MP is offering for rent, he should be free to do it at his own expense.

Subsistence expenses should be reimbursed based on actual costs or fixed allowances for types of meals.The MP should not be out of pocket but neither should they make a profit or enjoy excessively expensive meals.

BobQ

Andy_L wrote: »

becasue:

a. it makes no difference to the cost to the taxpayer if they rent from another MP or a private landlord

b. until the change to the rules they could claim the mortgage interest, now they can only claim rent. Thus they have had to move out & rent instead (or suck up the cost of accomodation themselves) ISTR an newspaper article (Telegraph or Independant?) in which an MP pointed out that he now claimed more in rent than he had in mortgage interest.

The issue is not that they are renting, its that they cannot see the moral distinction between pitching up in London and renting a flat based on their actual need when they do not own any properties in the first place; and colluding with others to turn their own taxpayer subsidised second home into money making scheme by exploiting the rules.

It would be relatively simple for IPSA to ban MPs from claiming rent for properties they have previously claimed expenses for living in, but they need the temptation removed completely.