"Generation Rent" now on the Wacky Backy

vivatifosi

I'm coming round to the idea of parliament being (at least temporarily) in a second city. There are plenty of examples of cities around the world where parliament is located in a city that is either not the capital (eg the Hague) or where the parliament is in a capital that is not the largest city (eg Washington, Canberra). It can be done without building a folly in the middle of nowhere (eg Brasilia). Why not, say, Birmingham or Manchester?

purch

It could be like a travelling Circus.

Elephants, Bearded Women and Clowns :eek:

tea-bag

The queen owns The Palace of Westminister!

Graham_Devon

The question for me would be, how does it work in other EU countries?

Germany? France?

Do their ministers get the lavish type of setup our MPs get? I describe it as lavish as I genuinely think it is when you compare it to any other public sector body or private company. I don't know of any public body or private company that has such a generous expenses scheme setup.

Theres a new row now over the mansion tax. Some (mainly tory side) MPs have second homes worth over £2m in London. They suggest that if labour put the mansion tax in place, the taxpayer will be paying it on their second homes. Reason being, it's an allowable expense. Again, I find this pretty lavish really, as no MP needs a second home for parliamentary duties worth in excess of £2m! The very fact that that the mansion tax (if it came in) would be an allowable expense, therefore, seems rather abusrd.

lisyloo

You seem to think they should be happy with a dramatically lower standard of living than you enjoy yourself.

I mostly live in a very average 1 bed flat shared between 2 of us.
Enough room for the basics e.g. 2 people's work clothes but nothing more. No garden, no parking, minimal room for hanging washing or storage of anything beyond the basics of living. That's our choice instead on living somewhere like Crydon/Ealing/Reading and commuting - so that's description not a whinge.

I would expect MPs (without families) to live in similar adequate but non-luxurious conditions when they are working away from their constituency. If it's not your main home and you don't have children and you are there to work, then that should be perfectly acceptable. Also they have a better chance of more space OUTSIDE london.

We do want good people but those who want the job on the basis of conscience because they want to make a contribution and change the people's lives, not just people attracted because of the money.
£67K is a high salary outside of London.

Married quarters on military basis like Lyneham have gardens and people have cars (my step-sister lived there), so I think it's a higher standard than I generally live in.

I accept what we have chosen but I'm not sure why you think I'm living in luxury. A 1-bed flat for 2 people provides adequate room for a base for going to work but nothing more than that.

BTW - we cannot afford to buy that flat despite being in the top 1% salary wise. That's not a whinge, just stating the fact.

wotsthat

lisyloo wrote: »

I mostly live in a very average 1 bed flat shared between 2 of us.
Enough room for the basics e.g. 2 people's work clothes but nothing more. No garden, no parking, minimal room for hanging washing or storage of anything beyond the basics of living. That's our choice instead on living somewhere like Crydon/Ealing/Reading and commuting - so that's description not a whinge.

So MP's shouldn't get more than the basics of living during the week? Why on Earth would someone proven to be a success in their field swap that to be an MP?

lisyloo wrote: »

I would expect MPs (without families) to live in similar adequate but non-luxurious conditions when they are working away from their constituency. If it's not your main home and you don't have children and you are there to work, then that should be perfectly acceptable. Also they have a better chance of more space OUTSIDE london.

I'd want the taxpayer to provide a secure comfortable serviced apartment. I wouldn't want to rent it directly so avoiding accusations of it being owned by my brother in law etc. etc.

IMO a better way to think about it is to consider how you'd expect your employer to treat you if you were travelling for business rather than thinking about the minimum acceptable standard you'll put up with until you get to your end game.

lisyloo wrote: »

We do want good people but those who want the job on the basis of conscience because they want to make a contribution and change the people's lives, not just people attracted because of the money. £67K is a high salary outside of London.

A similar point but most people with a track record of success would be earning more than £67k. Not only would they need a conscience they'd also have to be willing to take a pay cut.

lisyloo wrote: »

Married quarters on military basis like Lyneham have gardens and people have cars (my step-sister lived there), so I think it's a higher standard than I generally live in.

I accept what we have chosen but I'm not sure why you think I'm living in luxury. A 1-bed flat for 2 people provides adequate room for a base for going to work but nothing more than that.

BTW - we cannot afford to buy that flat despite being in the top 1% salary wise. That's not a whinge, just stating the fact.

I'm looking to live in digs near work and commute to the 'country house' at weekends (like you?). This would be self-funded and have a shelf life so I need to cut costs and am willing to 'rough it'.

However, if I take a job and have two permanent office locations I split my time between then I'd expect my employer to be funding something more than adequate. If I was told I would have to fully fund one location and expect no more than the bare basics at the other it's hardly making the job look attractive.

Great for the wealthy who want to get into politics because they can afford to bypass all this and buy somewhere nicer.

jjlandlord

The key point rightly (in my view) raised by lisyloo is that we don't want to 'attract' people to become MP based on money.
I cannot see anyone being a good MP if he decided to move into politics because of the prospect of earnings. I think the recent scandal proves the point.

Being an MP brings sufficient prestige and power, there is no need to, in addition, shower MPs with money.

I also find the argument that we need to attract highly successful people from the private sector rather dubious.

lisyloo

So MP's shouldn't get more than the basics of living during the week?

My suggestion was nice residences with gardens, parking and countryside in Wiltshire.

You made this personal and wanted to compare this to my residence (which is mainly in London) where MORE than 99% of the population have to make serious compromises.

A similar point but most people with a track record of success would be earning more than £67k.

I think you are living in a different world or have a different definition of success.
I don't think people who are sucessfully running a cafe or hairdressers or are an inspirational teacher or musician earn anything like that.
Did you mean "elite" rather than succesful?

then I'd expect my employer to be funding something more than adequate.

If you want a nice place in central London then I reckon you're talking £30K and that's before any bills or travel. Many "successful" people would quote £50K.
If you can command that as mere living expenses then you are extraordinary. I'm not denying that you are but that kind of oportunity is not available to most people (more than 99%).

Great for the wealthy

It sounds like you only want the very elite to be able to get into politics,

If I was told I would have to fully fund one location and expect no more than the bare basics at the other it's hardly making the job look attractive.

Well the vast majority (more than 99%) have to seriously compromise somewhere if they lived in central London. Millions choose to make that compromise, so either they like/love the compromise or they have decided it's their best option. If you can command the extra £50K then you are extraordinary as this is normally reserveed for execs.
Most of us ordinary folk just have to be selective about where we choose to compromise and pick the least important aspects to us individually.

To sum up: personally I don't think we should only restrict policitics to the elite or extraordinarily successful people. We should embrace inspirational people like teachers.

Generali

I reckon that the British Parliament should right in the middle of the largest most prosperous and successful city in the UK. One which has an infrastructure that can move public employees to their place of work and which can attract the brightest and best from around the country.

Does anyone have an idea of a city in the UK that meets those requirements?

wotsthat

lisyloo wrote: »

To sum up: personally I don't think we should only restrict policitics to the elite or extraordinarily successful people.

Like it is now you mean? To be fair requiring them to spend their weekdays in Bristol, Hull or Stoke will put quite a few of them off.

lisyloo wrote: »

BTW - I am really enjoying my current situation. Bare basics in return for all that London has to offer is a fine compromise for me.

Well of course, you're in London and neither you nor your employer, despite the expense and basic living conditions, have any intention of swapping for an ex-Army base in the middle of nowhere even though you'd have a garden in the week.

It's the London 'bug' where the sufferers list people and businesses that could move out although curiously it's essential that they and their business stay.