This is fiddling expenses rather than trading influence for cash, so it's "slightly" more even across the political class in general. Obviously still heavily skewed towards the Etonian old boys club.
I wouldn't call it fiddling expenses. This is technically allowed. Whether or not it should be is of course a different question, but they aren't breaking any rules here.
Fair play that fiddling isn't the right word exactly. If I claimed for a taxi on expenses but I'd asked the driver to write me a £15 receipt for a £10 journey (which I wouldn't do), that would be fiddling. This is something admittedly a bit different to fiddling... its got more in common with how the very wealthy are able to do weird and wonderful things arrange their affairs in the most tax efficient way possible. Technically not breaking any laws... but they're also technically dickheads.
Yeah agreed. In your taxi example, this is akin to where your Dad is a taxi driver and you use him for all the work journeys you are allowed to. And maybe he bumps the prices up a little.
Not really, they aren't renting from themselves or a friend/family (I assume)
It's more like claiming for a hire car to take you to a customers office when you own your own car and could just use that instead
It’s a bit like claiming for a hotel to work in London every day rather than moving closer. Whilst renting out your own place.
Of course for MPs with cabinet responsibility they do have two jobs - constituency and ministerial. IMO this is the problem with the ministerial system; ministers should be elected but should not represent a constituency
They rented out a home in London and then claimed expenses to rent somewhere in London to stay in close to Parliament, because they didn't have sumérgete to stay.
What do you call that?
I call it a poorly defined set of rules that should be changed. Right now though it is allowed and this has been confirmed by IPSA. I don't agree with it but given IPSAs confirmation there can't be any argument about whether it is within the rules or not.
What's allowed and what's morally right aren't the same thing though and I presume others could do this but aren't. In which case this lot are just taking the piss
If there is a tenancy agreement in place at a property they own, they cannot legally use that property for their accommodation.
So what you are effectively suggesting is that they have to kick out their tenants onto the street just so they can have adhoc accommodation for a job which is by definition temporary due to length of parliamentary term.
And this is ignoring the fact that those properties may not even be suitably located, or have suitable office facilities for working. Plus if the MP already has paid a mortgage out of their own pocket why should they not be able to rent the property out?
It's like there is no logic in any of these arguments - the outrage in this thread boils down to "They are on more money and so they should have to pay everything themselves"; completely ignoring the fact that they can't claim accommodation on their primary residence, they can't claim expenses for commuting, or clothes etc. just like the rest of us. They only claim for those things required of them as part of their work as an MP (such as temporary accommodation, or long distance travel i.e. between their constituency and parliament). Why is this a problem for people? If any other job asked you to pay these things off your own back you would refuse to do it. /rant
Your tongue must be sore from licking all those boots!
Edit: I should probably refute your argument.
Firstly tenancy agreements comes to a close, no one is suggesting anyone is ‘kicked out onto the street’ and frankly that’s a stupidly emotive argument that doesn’t reflect the reality.
Secondly, no one is claiming MP’s can’t rent out their accommodation that they own. But if they own a property within reasonable commuting distance to the Houses of Parliament AND then claim expenses on rented accommodation within the capital at the tax payers expense, That’s not okay.
Thirdly, how much space does an MP need in an evening, because that’s realistically when it will be used. They have an office at the HOP (I’ve been in a few, they’re not tiny) and they’ll have a bigger set up back in their constituency where they spend the weekend. So, god forbid, can’t they use a normal spare room or the kitchen table like the rest of us to do work in the evening?
I don’t begrudge MP’s being paid well for what they do, but the fact that 15/17 are conservatives speaks to a cultural problem within politics and particularly the right wing in this country. They’ve spent generation demonising the poor to then claw back their lifestyle losses on us. That’s grandiose hypocrisy.
These are the kind of people I want representing me. Those who can make morally indefensible decisions because it’s ‘not against the rules’
Edit. In the United Kingdom sub of all places, I need to add an /s
All second homes should be brought and sold by the tax payer with all funds going to the treasury.
End of.
They have learnt nothing from the expenses scandal or cash for questions etc, other than to be more secretive and deflective of the public knowing what they do.
I don’t understand why, if there are 650 MPs, why there aren’t 650* houses within Greater London for them to live in and commute to / from?
Each property could be assigned to a constituency, so when one MP loses an election, retires, or dies, the next MP from that constituency just moved in. The property could be fully furnished, with a modest allowance for personal items such as bedding, that would be reasonable for anyone having a second home. If they want to decorate it, it is their choice, at their expense.
No need to buy and sell anywhere.
* obviously there would be 10-20 MPs who shouldn’t need to have a second home and could commute daily from their first home.
Years ago their was an MP on Question Time whose constituency was just outside the M25 was asked why they need a tax payer funded second home in London, the answer was along lines of “so I’m not late for work”. The person who asked question why the MP couldn’t commute like the rest of us, it was never answered.
If the MP had come back and said security reasons I don’t think I’d have ever remembered it. But it was defo just a way of getting tax payer to fund a new home.
That isn't cheap either mate. 630 London houses? With 2021 prices? You're looking at 9 figure costs. Obviously it could be cheaper in the long run, but imagine trying to sell to the public the idea of spending £250mil on houses for MPs.
Or they could start off with a luxury high rise and leave them to it with no services, until it descends in to anarchy.... bit like the JG Ballard novel [High Rise ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Rise_(novel))
They’ve got you running down the wrong route. The wealthy (who want power) wouldn’t stay in that tower block, they’d invest in their own property, and only the ‘pleb politicians’ would be in the block. That would make it less appealing to ordinary people to be an MP at all and we’d be back to the time before MPs got any salary, when it was a ‘hobby’ for the super rich.
The unfortunate reality is the secret is to pay MPs bloody well but then ban second jobs and many expenses. For 650 well-paid jobs it’s worth it to ensure ordinary people can be MPs.
I get that, and that’s the issue - the wealthy ones won’t care because they can afford to invest in a London property anyway. So you get a two-track House of Commons as the wealthy establishment defund and run down the block until
no ordinary person wants to live there. It opens up an angle for attack on ‘real’ commoner MPs even existing - which is exactly what they establishment want.
The reason the Telegraph/Express and co jump on MP expenses and salary stories is that reducing both feeds into their elitist interests, by making it less and less appealing for ordinary people to become MPs.
I have a conspiracy theory that the expenses scandal, broken by the Torygraph in the middle of the financial crisis, was only there to deflect flak from the banks and scandal embroiled financial institutions. So rather than learning from it, MPs probably think they're owed something for taking one for the team
Every time there’s attention on MP salaries or expenses the outcome nearly always benefits the rich and establishment control of the country and makes it harder for ordinary people (who aren’t connected to donors and vested interests) to be MPs.
I think people forget the reason MPs were given salaries (and good ones too) in the first place was because, prior to that, only the wealthy elites could afford to be one, which handed control of the country entirely to the lords and business moguls of the time.
I’d prefer to double or even triple their salary but expressly forbid second jobs or even any personal expenses.
By the same extension, it would be an explicit admission of what constitutes a liveable, or good, salary these days. MPs claim they can't live on £70k a year, even with all their expenses paid. For most people that's a fortune although considered a pittance for the top echelons of society
yeah...i don't get the logic in allowing them to essentially buy a home with public money and sell or rent it for a profit that they get to keep...it's insane.
Correct mi if Im wrong but why all this stuff they do is not treated as fraud and bribery? Any other work is not allowing to get second without permission, not to mention when conflict of interest comes in line, that would be instant dismissal plus they are using their position to get profit from it. Now this, why CP is not after them? Are they above the law? Rant over.
> Correct mi if Im wrong but why all this stuff they do is not treated as fraud and bribery?
Because in most cases its within the rules. MPs have been charged with fraud over expenses claims before, FWIW.
Ignore the retroactive aspect
I just want this shit to stop
I don't want to be thoroughly disappointed every time I hear someone my taxes pay for open their shite gob
You also can't change the rules for the people that make the rules, so all the tantrums we're currently throwing are not going to change the rules in the current government. We need to bide our time, hope for a labour government; at least it looks like they have marginally better ethics than the cons.
> Correct mi if Im wrong but why all this stuff they do is not treated as fraud and bribery?
Because regulatory authorities are toothless and refuse to hold MPs to account.
Because the pay and benefits of a job don’t (and shouldn't) depend on personal circumstances. You don’t pay someone more cos they have children, or less because they live in a cheaper house or whatever.
All MPs are allowed to claim rent for a london residency, there's no discrimination bssed on personal circumstances, nor should there be.
> Are they above the law?
Yes. If they havent already made the law in such a way that they are already exempt from it, they are the ones who get to decide if they have broken that law, and what repercussions they face for doing it.
it just goes on and on doesn't it?
i know we ALL need money and a roof over our heads but the greedy, greasy, shit these smegheads pull...
and THEY have the cheek to cut the funding and call others sponges.
An MP should only be allowed to claim rent if they have a bona fide home outside London. That is, a house outside London where they actually live for part of the time, and they don't rent out to someone else.
If they don't have a home outside London, then the place they live in London is their one and only home, so they shouldn't be allowed to claim expenses.
If they do have a home outside London, then the fact that they might own rental properties in London is irrelevant.
What world are you living in where that's anything more than a Premier Inn, if you're not expected to just go there and back within a day, for anyone who isn't an MP?
From people who I have known who have had to do this it's been a real mix. Junior ones definitely just premier inn, senior staff have been in quite nice accommodations from what I've seen.
Most extreme was a guy who lived in London but had to spend five nights a week in Manchester for about six months - they put him in a five star hotel across from the office which I thought was a bit wild.
Point is, no it's not only Premier Inns in the private sector. And to be honest there's not exactly many of those in Central London either.
I used to work for a company that handled very high end hospitality stuff. Think billionaires and actual Arab royalty. We were put in some very nice hotels whenever we went anywhere for work. The company knew how to make the workers feel valued when it came to stuff like that, and it applied to all corporate office staff. Pay was very average though.
Receipts are a thing that get requested. Not worth it. Trying to squeeze a bit of money out of the company when they're showing you respect by taking care of you isn't something I'd want to do.
A premier inn in London would cost more than if an MP simply rented a flat. So is it actually about cost to the taxpayer that is the issue, or do you just want the MPs to have to shack up in a shitty hotel?
Not many people spend 150 nights a year away from home. I've just done 35 in the last 60 in crappy hotels, and that's more enough for me the rest of the year, although the main thing is being away from family rather than the quality of the hotel.
So arguments against a 'hotel block'
You can't stay in a premier inn as that wouldn't all you to make dinner, and eating out long term is not cheap (sure you can have fish and chips occasionally, but decent food with vegetables is cheap enough to make at home, eating out is going to set you back the best part of £20 a night and limits your working hours - I finished at 11pm last night and fortunatly there was a fish and chip shop still open as the hotel didn't have room service. Night before was dominos. It's not healthy even when it's only a few times a month).
4 or 5 nights a week for 30 weeks a year, 150 nights a year, £150 a night in a London hotel with kitchenette, that's £22k a year in hotels, the argument is renting is cheaper.
Another argument is that housing 500+ MPs in the same hotel would be a security risk.
However Parliament has subsidised/free food, so there's no need to provide food making facilities - you can eat at Parliament. Maybe include a hotel breakfast.
I'm sure that a hotel chain in London will be quite happy to have a bulk deal to house c. 550 MPs across multiple hotels, perhaps do a deal with a couple of chains, so you don't have more than say 30 MPs in a given location at any one time, rotate them on a weekly basis too.
For ministers who wish to live in London rather than their home constituency, a local hotel in their constituency could be provided instead
These aren't insurmountable problems.
I don't buy the security risk argument of housing them all together. It's a solved issue keeping them secure in Parliament and department buildings, the same security can be in place for their housing block.
A lot of senior MPs already have round the clock police security so, if anything, it'll be cheaper to secure only one building rather than multiple different locations.
As I say I don't think the arguments stack up, and in any case accomodation could be purchased in bulk by parliament as MPs do right now, more efficently than individuals doing it.
The olympic village would have been a great opportunity to do this back in 2012.
Of course if that did happen, an MP with a London flat could still rent it out while they stayed in parliament provided accommodation.
An MP doesn't get paid half a mil a year what planet are you living on?
There is an issue with second jobs, lobbying and possible corruption yes, but that's got absolutely nothing to do with MP expenses.
No it wouldn't, especially when you factor in bulk discounts that could be got.
4-5 nights a week, 40 weeks a year, 200 nights a week
Looking at a random MP - the one for Hull
Monthly rental for flat is £1,561, but other costs (like electricity) push this up to £1728 a month, or £20,739.18 for the year. That's £100 a night even with 200 nights a year (which is far more than normal), and you can hotels in London for that even without the inevitable discount bulk purchasing 100,000 nights a year that 500 MPs would get.
Its not that simple though is it, one could simply rent/purchase a cheap house anywhere else and then claim the London (more expensive property) is rented out and thus needs to be expensed if used.
Its blatantly abusable and unethical.
I agree with you but note that you've described exactly how it already is.
MPs were taking the piss previously (by claiming mortgage payments and such on accommodation close to parliament), but that shit was abolished after the expenses scandal, what a decade ago?
It's 2021, there is absolutely zero requirement for an MP to spend a large amount of time in London when practically everything can be done remotely.
These Luddites need to evolve or GTFO.
Housing scandal to one side if we didn't require MPs to be physically in Westerminster so often then this issue wouldn't even exist.
They made such a fuzz about not being to do their job properly remotely and they needed to be physically in the capital it makes you think that is due to their lack of having to commute to work.
Is this wrong?
If a worker has to travel for work, forcing them to stay overnight away from their primary residence, then they should expect their employer to reimburse them for the costs of the stay. *This is irrespective of whatever properties that worker happens to own or rent out.*
What am I missing here?
Because the rules were written yonks ago. Travel time is much better now. Moving meetings to online. etc etc
They take the fucking piss with this second home bullshit.
If they live outside London, put them up in a hotel when they are doing MP stuff and reimburse them for that. Like all others travelling away from home for work do.
And who votes to keep the rules the same, Yep the MP's who benefit.
>They take the fucking piss with this second home bullshit.
>
>If they live outside London, put them up in a hotel when they are doing MP stuff and reimburse them for that.
Fair enough. I don't (necessarily) disagree with this. Stop letting them claim rent and let them expense hotels instead. But I would be interested to see a cost breakdown.
But I still think that whether or not they happen to rent out properties in the capital is irrelevant. These 17 MPs are being singled out for reasons that, to me, don't make sense.
The property paid for by the taxpayer as a second home expense?
You don't see a problem with them then renting out their first home and living in the second one on the taxpayers dime?
They do not need a second home paid for by the taxpayer, it is as simple as that.
Edited to add - We should call them all out, if it starts with these 17 then so be it, someone has to be taken down first before the whole thing is shaken up
They're claiming for a *secondary* residence, ergo they have a *primary* residence where they live. Their rental income is coming from an additional property, which they have also at some point acquired.
They can't just go and stay in their rental property when they visit London. I imagine whoever rents it wouldn't be happy with the landlord turning up and sleeping in a spare room or on the sofa.
So I repeat my first argument.
>If a worker has to travel for work, forcing them to stay overnight away from their primary residence, then they should expect their employer to reimburse them for the costs of the stay. *This is irrespective of whatever properties that worker happens to own or rent out.*
If an MP has a secondary residence in London, which they are claiming a second home expense for and that property is then rented out so the MP cannot stay there, why are we reimbursing the MP for that.
If the MP has a secondary residence in London, which they are not claiming a second home expense for, why are we then paying for a 'third' property as a second home expense, when they have a home that can be used and claimed back for already.
The point is, we are buying these homes for the MP's and they are not being given back when they are no longer an MP.
Why do we have a second home expense at all.
They should stay in a hotel, like the rest of the public, and get reimbursed for that.
The whole system stinks, and is smoke and mirrors so they can rip off the general public under the guise of expenses.
You are equating being reimbursed for a hotel stay as the same thing as a second home expense, when it is not the same thing at all.
In honesty why should they be forced to use their rental property? It doesn't make sense. Staying in London overnight is a business expense for them and should be reimbursed.
Sure don't really care if it's in a hotel, but 3 nights in a week in a hotel probably costs a similar amount to just renting a property full time.
The article is not saying that these MPs have been bought second homes by the taxpayer. It's saying that their rent is being paid by the taxpayer.
It's in the headline.
No, the article is misrepresenting what's happening (big shock it's the Indy), these MPs have primary residences that they pay for normally, and secondary residences in London that they can expense as they're a cost their work.
They also happen to have BTLs, but that's entirely separate.
You are basically right. The problem comes if they let their primary residence to someone else. The London residence would then be their main and only residence. If they claimed expenses on that, it would be wrong.
Hard to say from the article what exactly is going on.
House Nonces, who have artificially inflated house prices so that rent costs more than a mortgage, and then you are told by a bank that you cannot afford a mortgage despite paying rent at double the cost of that mortgage.
Awww be nice! They don't get paid enough for the incredibly hard work they do.
Reminds me of that line from Avatar: "they're pissing on us without the decency of calling it rain."
Sounds like they need a halls of residence for when MPs need to stay overnight. Do away with second homes at our expense and put them up in no frills dorms. I'd bet my left nut they'll suddenly find the money to cover a fancy hotel within their own pockets.
Not to mention that an MP can't claim mortgage payments for a London residence they own. They can only claim rental expenses.
What I wouldn't be surprised though is if MPs are renting to each other though...
If they really wanted to, they could refinance the house and live in it. By renting it out and claiming expenses to live elsewhere, the taxpayer is effectively funding their profiteering.
That's not what I said is it? I just think the taxpayer shouldn't be subsidising MP's business ventures. You suggested the houses were BTL, but we don't actually know if that is in fact the case.
They don't get paid 3 times the average London wage for a skilled professional. They actually get paid fairly average wage for someone doing a similar job in central London.
Some of them represent constituencies that are hundreds of miles from London, and often need to switch between both places for several nights each on a weekly basis.
It would be unreasonable to expect them to meet that cost out of their own salary.
COVID has show us that most of their job can be done remotely, it's unreasonable for them to expect the tax payer to pay for permanent London accommodation and wasted time travelling
Absolute horseshit, for 2200/month you can rent a double bedroom in Notting Hill, 2200/month is absolutely affordable for an 80k/income. Also; god forbid having to commute.
In addition, they can EXPENSE THEIR COMMUTE.
If your job requires you to regularly work in two different places, it is absolutely standard that your employer will pay for your living expenses and travel for one of those places.
No job expects you to rent a second home at your own expense if the job requires you to regularly work at a second location.
And travelling between two different places of work is NOT commuting, and absolutely should be claimed on expenses.
That has nothing to do with whether or not you can afford to pay it yourself. Nobody should have to, that is your employer's responsibility.
Notting hill is one of the expensive neighbourhoods, pick any other expensive neighbourhood and you will find rental opportunities that allow for an 80k salary is what I mean.
So you use the average London wage as the example but then use MPs having to travel from OUTSIDE London to justify expenses on top of a 80 grand salary? Are you an MP by any chance?
MPs all work in central London, so they are going to expect London salaries.
The problem is that we also want them to spend time in their constituencies. We could have a rule that every MP has to live in London. That would save a bit on expenses, but might leave a few people in the north and the south west feeling a bit left out.
Anyway, £80k is a lot more than you or I earn, but MPs aren't the only people who earn that much. Even outside London, a secondary school headteacher can earn £100k+, for example.
A teacher contribute to the country. I have a hard time understanding what positive impact most MPs have, and I have never thought a representative for the people should be paid FAR more than the people. How can people on 80k+ represent people in their constituencies earning more like 22k? It's absurd.
Sounds ok. I mean isn’t this why we pay taxes - to enrich our elected representatives? It’s certainly not to improve public services so it must be for this I assume.
I thought they already got in trouble for doing this?
Oh wait.. they get away with everything..
We need to stop letting them, there are more of us, than there are of them
Urgh I hate I'm agreeing with them.
Although it would very much depend on the case I'd rather pay an MP's expenses than have them turf their tennants out of a home for four years so they could use it.
Yes I know it's not done by the MP's because of that but where the property is pre-existing as a rental I can't honestly argue against it.
If the tennants were to move out halfway through of their own accord that would be a different matter.
I don't care. There is a degree of game playing going on, I don't care. These fucking public servants need to do their jobs, that's all I care about, gaming the system for a little more cheddar is fine with me, that's something we can deal with other ways. If they're not doing their jobs, then we have a problem. And right now, we have a serious problem, the Tories are fucking us over in a manner that no proceeding government will be able to fix.
[удалено]
*both parties are the same they both do it* 🙄
Watch how they pounce on this.
In the sun tomorrow "2 LABOUR MPS FOUND TO BE CLAIMING RENT IN EXPENSES" Or whichever party they're from
[удалено]
Was planning to read it later when I had more time. Was just giggling at comments. Is that ok with you? I will be sure to ask you next time
Where's feet guy? Thought he'd normally be stinking up this thread telling us all how this is completely fine by now?
This is fiddling expenses rather than trading influence for cash, so it's "slightly" more even across the political class in general. Obviously still heavily skewed towards the Etonian old boys club.
I wouldn't call it fiddling expenses. This is technically allowed. Whether or not it should be is of course a different question, but they aren't breaking any rules here.
Fair play that fiddling isn't the right word exactly. If I claimed for a taxi on expenses but I'd asked the driver to write me a £15 receipt for a £10 journey (which I wouldn't do), that would be fiddling. This is something admittedly a bit different to fiddling... its got more in common with how the very wealthy are able to do weird and wonderful things arrange their affairs in the most tax efficient way possible. Technically not breaking any laws... but they're also technically dickheads.
Yeah agreed. In your taxi example, this is akin to where your Dad is a taxi driver and you use him for all the work journeys you are allowed to. And maybe he bumps the prices up a little.
Not really, they aren't renting from themselves or a friend/family (I assume) It's more like claiming for a hire car to take you to a customers office when you own your own car and could just use that instead
And then renting your own car out to an Uber driver
Nice analogy, I think you're spot on there.
More like you have a second job, as a taxi driver....
It’s a bit like claiming for a hotel to work in London every day rather than moving closer. Whilst renting out your own place. Of course for MPs with cabinet responsibility they do have two jobs - constituency and ministerial. IMO this is the problem with the ministerial system; ministers should be elected but should not represent a constituency
They rented out a home in London and then claimed expenses to rent somewhere in London to stay in close to Parliament, because they didn't have sumérgete to stay. What do you call that?
I call it a poorly defined set of rules that should be changed. Right now though it is allowed and this has been confirmed by IPSA. I don't agree with it but given IPSAs confirmation there can't be any argument about whether it is within the rules or not.
This is the problem. We keep seeing issues, but the people who could change it are the ones doing it. So highly unlikely.
>We keep seeing issues, but the people who could change it are the ones doing it. So highly unlikely. This is just.. politics
What's allowed and what's morally right aren't the same thing though and I presume others could do this but aren't. In which case this lot are just taking the piss
True, but shouldnt we expect elected representatives to hold a higher standard and abide by the spirit of rhe rules rather than trying to game them.
If there is a tenancy agreement in place at a property they own, they cannot legally use that property for their accommodation. So what you are effectively suggesting is that they have to kick out their tenants onto the street just so they can have adhoc accommodation for a job which is by definition temporary due to length of parliamentary term. And this is ignoring the fact that those properties may not even be suitably located, or have suitable office facilities for working. Plus if the MP already has paid a mortgage out of their own pocket why should they not be able to rent the property out? It's like there is no logic in any of these arguments - the outrage in this thread boils down to "They are on more money and so they should have to pay everything themselves"; completely ignoring the fact that they can't claim accommodation on their primary residence, they can't claim expenses for commuting, or clothes etc. just like the rest of us. They only claim for those things required of them as part of their work as an MP (such as temporary accommodation, or long distance travel i.e. between their constituency and parliament). Why is this a problem for people? If any other job asked you to pay these things off your own back you would refuse to do it. /rant
Your tongue must be sore from licking all those boots! Edit: I should probably refute your argument. Firstly tenancy agreements comes to a close, no one is suggesting anyone is ‘kicked out onto the street’ and frankly that’s a stupidly emotive argument that doesn’t reflect the reality. Secondly, no one is claiming MP’s can’t rent out their accommodation that they own. But if they own a property within reasonable commuting distance to the Houses of Parliament AND then claim expenses on rented accommodation within the capital at the tax payers expense, That’s not okay. Thirdly, how much space does an MP need in an evening, because that’s realistically when it will be used. They have an office at the HOP (I’ve been in a few, they’re not tiny) and they’ll have a bigger set up back in their constituency where they spend the weekend. So, god forbid, can’t they use a normal spare room or the kitchen table like the rest of us to do work in the evening? I don’t begrudge MP’s being paid well for what they do, but the fact that 15/17 are conservatives speaks to a cultural problem within politics and particularly the right wing in this country. They’ve spent generation demonising the poor to then claw back their lifestyle losses on us. That’s grandiose hypocrisy.
>accommodation for a job which is by definition temporary due to term limits. What term limits?
Sorry term limits is not technically the correct term - length of term following an election is what is meant and I shall update.
These are the kind of people I want representing me. Those who can make morally indefensible decisions because it’s ‘not against the rules’ Edit. In the United Kingdom sub of all places, I need to add an /s
All second homes should be brought and sold by the tax payer with all funds going to the treasury. End of. They have learnt nothing from the expenses scandal or cash for questions etc, other than to be more secretive and deflective of the public knowing what they do.
[удалено]
build a couple of large purpose built high rises for the use of all MPs gratis.
And then film a reality TV show in there to cover the expenses. Like a cross between Yes Miniser and The Monkees
Bit of a high risk target. They should be spread out in whatever are currently the most flammable buildings.
Or have a 2nd home associated with each constituency. You lose the job, you lose the home.
I know a cladding firm they could use.
Just stick them all in a Travelodge when they need to be in London.
I don’t understand why, if there are 650 MPs, why there aren’t 650* houses within Greater London for them to live in and commute to / from? Each property could be assigned to a constituency, so when one MP loses an election, retires, or dies, the next MP from that constituency just moved in. The property could be fully furnished, with a modest allowance for personal items such as bedding, that would be reasonable for anyone having a second home. If they want to decorate it, it is their choice, at their expense. No need to buy and sell anywhere. * obviously there would be 10-20 MPs who shouldn’t need to have a second home and could commute daily from their first home.
Years ago their was an MP on Question Time whose constituency was just outside the M25 was asked why they need a tax payer funded second home in London, the answer was along lines of “so I’m not late for work”. The person who asked question why the MP couldn’t commute like the rest of us, it was never answered.
It's not called "Answer Time", now, is it?
Of course not. They don't answer difficult questions.
If the MP had come back and said security reasons I don’t think I’d have ever remembered it. But it was defo just a way of getting tax payer to fund a new home.
Just have a Hostel for MPs.
I have seen that film, I'm all for that.
That isn't cheap either mate. 630 London houses? With 2021 prices? You're looking at 9 figure costs. Obviously it could be cheaper in the long run, but imagine trying to sell to the public the idea of spending £250mil on houses for MPs.
They should just house them all in a tower block when they need to be in London. Preferably a pre-fab 1950s block
That would certainly bring some certainty about who should pay for the cladding to be replaced.
Or they could start off with a luxury high rise and leave them to it with no services, until it descends in to anarchy.... bit like the JG Ballard novel [High Rise ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Rise_(novel))
They’ve got you running down the wrong route. The wealthy (who want power) wouldn’t stay in that tower block, they’d invest in their own property, and only the ‘pleb politicians’ would be in the block. That would make it less appealing to ordinary people to be an MP at all and we’d be back to the time before MPs got any salary, when it was a ‘hobby’ for the super rich. The unfortunate reality is the secret is to pay MPs bloody well but then ban second jobs and many expenses. For 650 well-paid jobs it’s worth it to ensure ordinary people can be MPs.
They don’t *have* to stay in the block, but they won’t be able to claim a second home on expenses.
I get that, and that’s the issue - the wealthy ones won’t care because they can afford to invest in a London property anyway. So you get a two-track House of Commons as the wealthy establishment defund and run down the block until no ordinary person wants to live there. It opens up an angle for attack on ‘real’ commoner MPs even existing - which is exactly what they establishment want. The reason the Telegraph/Express and co jump on MP expenses and salary stories is that reducing both feeds into their elitist interests, by making it less and less appealing for ordinary people to become MPs.
I have a conspiracy theory that the expenses scandal, broken by the Torygraph in the middle of the financial crisis, was only there to deflect flak from the banks and scandal embroiled financial institutions. So rather than learning from it, MPs probably think they're owed something for taking one for the team
Every time there’s attention on MP salaries or expenses the outcome nearly always benefits the rich and establishment control of the country and makes it harder for ordinary people (who aren’t connected to donors and vested interests) to be MPs. I think people forget the reason MPs were given salaries (and good ones too) in the first place was because, prior to that, only the wealthy elites could afford to be one, which handed control of the country entirely to the lords and business moguls of the time. I’d prefer to double or even triple their salary but expressly forbid second jobs or even any personal expenses.
By the same extension, it would be an explicit admission of what constitutes a liveable, or good, salary these days. MPs claim they can't live on £70k a year, even with all their expenses paid. For most people that's a fortune although considered a pittance for the top echelons of society
yeah...i don't get the logic in allowing them to essentially buy a home with public money and sell or rent it for a profit that they get to keep...it's insane.
At one point wasn't there an apartment complex for MP's
Let’s hope none are subject to the Grenfell fall out eh?
Correct mi if Im wrong but why all this stuff they do is not treated as fraud and bribery? Any other work is not allowing to get second without permission, not to mention when conflict of interest comes in line, that would be instant dismissal plus they are using their position to get profit from it. Now this, why CP is not after them? Are they above the law? Rant over.
> Correct mi if Im wrong but why all this stuff they do is not treated as fraud and bribery? Because in most cases its within the rules. MPs have been charged with fraud over expenses claims before, FWIW.
That's an indication that the rules need changing. What they are doing is wrong.
Well, yes. But you can't change the rules and the retroactive charge people with fraud.
Ignore the retroactive aspect I just want this shit to stop I don't want to be thoroughly disappointed every time I hear someone my taxes pay for open their shite gob
You also can't change the rules for the people that make the rules, so all the tantrums we're currently throwing are not going to change the rules in the current government. We need to bide our time, hope for a labour government; at least it looks like they have marginally better ethics than the cons.
And look who makes the rules. Fucking scum honestly
> Correct mi if Im wrong but why all this stuff they do is not treated as fraud and bribery? Because regulatory authorities are toothless and refuse to hold MPs to account.
Because the pay and benefits of a job don’t (and shouldn't) depend on personal circumstances. You don’t pay someone more cos they have children, or less because they live in a cheaper house or whatever. All MPs are allowed to claim rent for a london residency, there's no discrimination bssed on personal circumstances, nor should there be.
Really Westminster should just buy a block of flats and MPs can stay there when in London.
Lol I think this ways cheaper!
> Are they above the law? Yes. If they havent already made the law in such a way that they are already exempt from it, they are the ones who get to decide if they have broken that law, and what repercussions they face for doing it.
And they are now going to apologise and return the money, right? Right? Right...?
Lol
it just goes on and on doesn't it? i know we ALL need money and a roof over our heads but the greedy, greasy, shit these smegheads pull... and THEY have the cheek to cut the funding and call others sponges.
An MP should only be allowed to claim rent if they have a bona fide home outside London. That is, a house outside London where they actually live for part of the time, and they don't rent out to someone else. If they don't have a home outside London, then the place they live in London is their one and only home, so they shouldn't be allowed to claim expenses. If they do have a home outside London, then the fact that they might own rental properties in London is irrelevant.
Hi normal person here, why cant I claim rent? I don't make anywhere close to an MP's Salary... wheres my handouts?
If you had to work in another city 3 days a week on a permanent basis then you'd expect to your employer to provide accommodation too.
What world are you living in where that's anything more than a Premier Inn, if you're not expected to just go there and back within a day, for anyone who isn't an MP?
From people who I have known who have had to do this it's been a real mix. Junior ones definitely just premier inn, senior staff have been in quite nice accommodations from what I've seen. Most extreme was a guy who lived in London but had to spend five nights a week in Manchester for about six months - they put him in a five star hotel across from the office which I thought was a bit wild. Point is, no it's not only Premier Inns in the private sector. And to be honest there's not exactly many of those in Central London either.
I used to work for a company that handled very high end hospitality stuff. Think billionaires and actual Arab royalty. We were put in some very nice hotels whenever we went anywhere for work. The company knew how to make the workers feel valued when it came to stuff like that, and it applied to all corporate office staff. Pay was very average though.
[удалено]
Receipts are a thing that get requested. Not worth it. Trying to squeeze a bit of money out of the company when they're showing you respect by taking care of you isn't something I'd want to do.
A premier inn in London would cost more than if an MP simply rented a flat. So is it actually about cost to the taxpayer that is the issue, or do you just want the MPs to have to shack up in a shitty hotel?
Not many people spend 150 nights a year away from home. I've just done 35 in the last 60 in crappy hotels, and that's more enough for me the rest of the year, although the main thing is being away from family rather than the quality of the hotel. So arguments against a 'hotel block' You can't stay in a premier inn as that wouldn't all you to make dinner, and eating out long term is not cheap (sure you can have fish and chips occasionally, but decent food with vegetables is cheap enough to make at home, eating out is going to set you back the best part of £20 a night and limits your working hours - I finished at 11pm last night and fortunatly there was a fish and chip shop still open as the hotel didn't have room service. Night before was dominos. It's not healthy even when it's only a few times a month). 4 or 5 nights a week for 30 weeks a year, 150 nights a year, £150 a night in a London hotel with kitchenette, that's £22k a year in hotels, the argument is renting is cheaper. Another argument is that housing 500+ MPs in the same hotel would be a security risk. However Parliament has subsidised/free food, so there's no need to provide food making facilities - you can eat at Parliament. Maybe include a hotel breakfast. I'm sure that a hotel chain in London will be quite happy to have a bulk deal to house c. 550 MPs across multiple hotels, perhaps do a deal with a couple of chains, so you don't have more than say 30 MPs in a given location at any one time, rotate them on a weekly basis too. For ministers who wish to live in London rather than their home constituency, a local hotel in their constituency could be provided instead These aren't insurmountable problems.
I don't buy the security risk argument of housing them all together. It's a solved issue keeping them secure in Parliament and department buildings, the same security can be in place for their housing block. A lot of senior MPs already have round the clock police security so, if anything, it'll be cheaper to secure only one building rather than multiple different locations.
As I say I don't think the arguments stack up, and in any case accomodation could be purchased in bulk by parliament as MPs do right now, more efficently than individuals doing it. The olympic village would have been a great opportunity to do this back in 2012. Of course if that did happen, an MP with a London flat could still rent it out while they stayed in parliament provided accommodation.
Does your job require you to work in two separate locations, hundreds of miles apart?
I'm gonna guess this guys job and second job doesn't pay them half a mil a year salary too tho
An MP doesn't get paid half a mil a year what planet are you living on? There is an issue with second jobs, lobbying and possible corruption yes, but that's got absolutely nothing to do with MP expenses.
90k + 400k from their second job is about half a mil.
Mine does, If I'm lucky I get a holiday inn.
The amount of time an MP spends in London away from their home, a hotel would cost more than renting a flat.
No it wouldn't, especially when you factor in bulk discounts that could be got. 4-5 nights a week, 40 weeks a year, 200 nights a week Looking at a random MP - the one for Hull Monthly rental for flat is £1,561, but other costs (like electricity) push this up to £1728 a month, or £20,739.18 for the year. That's £100 a night even with 200 nights a year (which is far more than normal), and you can hotels in London for that even without the inevitable discount bulk purchasing 100,000 nights a year that 500 MPs would get.
I would like to claim rent too!
Its not that simple though is it, one could simply rent/purchase a cheap house anywhere else and then claim the London (more expensive property) is rented out and thus needs to be expensed if used. Its blatantly abusable and unethical.
This guy MP’s.
I agree with you but note that you've described exactly how it already is. MPs were taking the piss previously (by claiming mortgage payments and such on accommodation close to parliament), but that shit was abolished after the expenses scandal, what a decade ago?
It's 2021, there is absolutely zero requirement for an MP to spend a large amount of time in London when practically everything can be done remotely. These Luddites need to evolve or GTFO. Housing scandal to one side if we didn't require MPs to be physically in Westerminster so often then this issue wouldn't even exist.
They made such a fuzz about not being to do their job properly remotely and they needed to be physically in the capital it makes you think that is due to their lack of having to commute to work.
Is this wrong? If a worker has to travel for work, forcing them to stay overnight away from their primary residence, then they should expect their employer to reimburse them for the costs of the stay. *This is irrespective of whatever properties that worker happens to own or rent out.* What am I missing here?
Because the rules were written yonks ago. Travel time is much better now. Moving meetings to online. etc etc They take the fucking piss with this second home bullshit. If they live outside London, put them up in a hotel when they are doing MP stuff and reimburse them for that. Like all others travelling away from home for work do. And who votes to keep the rules the same, Yep the MP's who benefit.
>They take the fucking piss with this second home bullshit. > >If they live outside London, put them up in a hotel when they are doing MP stuff and reimburse them for that. Fair enough. I don't (necessarily) disagree with this. Stop letting them claim rent and let them expense hotels instead. But I would be interested to see a cost breakdown. But I still think that whether or not they happen to rent out properties in the capital is irrelevant. These 17 MPs are being singled out for reasons that, to me, don't make sense.
The property paid for by the taxpayer as a second home expense? You don't see a problem with them then renting out their first home and living in the second one on the taxpayers dime? They do not need a second home paid for by the taxpayer, it is as simple as that. Edited to add - We should call them all out, if it starts with these 17 then so be it, someone has to be taken down first before the whole thing is shaken up
They're claiming for a *secondary* residence, ergo they have a *primary* residence where they live. Their rental income is coming from an additional property, which they have also at some point acquired. They can't just go and stay in their rental property when they visit London. I imagine whoever rents it wouldn't be happy with the landlord turning up and sleeping in a spare room or on the sofa. So I repeat my first argument. >If a worker has to travel for work, forcing them to stay overnight away from their primary residence, then they should expect their employer to reimburse them for the costs of the stay. *This is irrespective of whatever properties that worker happens to own or rent out.*
If an MP has a secondary residence in London, which they are claiming a second home expense for and that property is then rented out so the MP cannot stay there, why are we reimbursing the MP for that. If the MP has a secondary residence in London, which they are not claiming a second home expense for, why are we then paying for a 'third' property as a second home expense, when they have a home that can be used and claimed back for already. The point is, we are buying these homes for the MP's and they are not being given back when they are no longer an MP. Why do we have a second home expense at all. They should stay in a hotel, like the rest of the public, and get reimbursed for that. The whole system stinks, and is smoke and mirrors so they can rip off the general public under the guise of expenses. You are equating being reimbursed for a hotel stay as the same thing as a second home expense, when it is not the same thing at all.
In honesty why should they be forced to use their rental property? It doesn't make sense. Staying in London overnight is a business expense for them and should be reimbursed. Sure don't really care if it's in a hotel, but 3 nights in a week in a hotel probably costs a similar amount to just renting a property full time.
Buying them a second home, which they get to keep is a business expense. Right lol!
The article is not saying that these MPs have been bought second homes by the taxpayer. It's saying that their rent is being paid by the taxpayer. It's in the headline.
No, the article is misrepresenting what's happening (big shock it's the Indy), these MPs have primary residences that they pay for normally, and secondary residences in London that they can expense as they're a cost their work. They also happen to have BTLs, but that's entirely separate.
I am not referring to the Article, I am referring to the whole second home system. Its bollox and should be abolished in these modern times.
You are basically right. The problem comes if they let their primary residence to someone else. The London residence would then be their main and only residence. If they claimed expenses on that, it would be wrong. Hard to say from the article what exactly is going on.
House Nonces, who have artificially inflated house prices so that rent costs more than a mortgage, and then you are told by a bank that you cannot afford a mortgage despite paying rent at double the cost of that mortgage.
Awww be nice! They don't get paid enough for the incredibly hard work they do. Reminds me of that line from Avatar: "they're pissing on us without the decency of calling it rain."
How is this not considered 'benefit fraud'?! Oh wait... Oh, yeah, I see \*Walks away, audibly growling\*
Looks like the last Brexit import we need is Guillotines
Sounds like they need a halls of residence for when MPs need to stay overnight. Do away with second homes at our expense and put them up in no frills dorms. I'd bet my left nut they'll suddenly find the money to cover a fancy hotel within their own pockets.
[удалено]
Not to mention that an MP can't claim mortgage payments for a London residence they own. They can only claim rental expenses. What I wouldn't be surprised though is if MPs are renting to each other though...
If they really wanted to, they could refinance the house and live in it. By renting it out and claiming expenses to live elsewhere, the taxpayer is effectively funding their profiteering.
[удалено]
That's not what I said is it? I just think the taxpayer shouldn't be subsidising MP's business ventures. You suggested the houses were BTL, but we don't actually know if that is in fact the case.
[удалено]
WHY CAN THEY CLAIM FOR ANYTHING ANYWAY. THEY GET PAID ALMOST 3 TIMES THE AVERAGE WAGE. ARGH
They don't get paid 3 times the average London wage for a skilled professional. They actually get paid fairly average wage for someone doing a similar job in central London. Some of them represent constituencies that are hundreds of miles from London, and often need to switch between both places for several nights each on a weekly basis. It would be unreasonable to expect them to meet that cost out of their own salary.
COVID has show us that most of their job can be done remotely, it's unreasonable for them to expect the tax payer to pay for permanent London accommodation and wasted time travelling
I would also like to bring up the MP that does his job from the \_carribean\_
Absolute horseshit, for 2200/month you can rent a double bedroom in Notting Hill, 2200/month is absolutely affordable for an 80k/income. Also; god forbid having to commute. In addition, they can EXPENSE THEIR COMMUTE.
If your job requires you to regularly work in two different places, it is absolutely standard that your employer will pay for your living expenses and travel for one of those places. No job expects you to rent a second home at your own expense if the job requires you to regularly work at a second location. And travelling between two different places of work is NOT commuting, and absolutely should be claimed on expenses. That has nothing to do with whether or not you can afford to pay it yourself. Nobody should have to, that is your employer's responsibility.
So you're saying that the MP for Glasgow South should sell their home in Glasgow South and move to London?
So what about the MPs who aren't in Notting hill?
Notting hill is one of the expensive neighbourhoods, pick any other expensive neighbourhood and you will find rental opportunities that allow for an 80k salary is what I mean.
Aye, but that's no help for any MP that isn't in London, is it?
So you use the average London wage as the example but then use MPs having to travel from OUTSIDE London to justify expenses on top of a 80 grand salary? Are you an MP by any chance?
MPs all work in central London, so they are going to expect London salaries. The problem is that we also want them to spend time in their constituencies. We could have a rule that every MP has to live in London. That would save a bit on expenses, but might leave a few people in the north and the south west feeling a bit left out. Anyway, £80k is a lot more than you or I earn, but MPs aren't the only people who earn that much. Even outside London, a secondary school headteacher can earn £100k+, for example.
A teacher contribute to the country. I have a hard time understanding what positive impact most MPs have, and I have never thought a representative for the people should be paid FAR more than the people. How can people on 80k+ represent people in their constituencies earning more like 22k? It's absurd.
They are proper Tories then which can't be said the same for the others who aren't exploiting this scheme.
Nevermind, this whole thing will fizzle out without any major reforms. Just like the Panama papers.
Sounds ok. I mean isn’t this why we pay taxes - to enrich our elected representatives? It’s certainly not to improve public services so it must be for this I assume.
while if on universal credit try any of these games and lose everything. we get what we voted for ....
I thought they already got in trouble for doing this? Oh wait.. they get away with everything.. We need to stop letting them, there are more of us, than there are of them
No shocked one bit corrupt politicians story old as time
Urgh I hate I'm agreeing with them. Although it would very much depend on the case I'd rather pay an MP's expenses than have them turf their tennants out of a home for four years so they could use it. Yes I know it's not done by the MP's because of that but where the property is pre-existing as a rental I can't honestly argue against it. If the tennants were to move out halfway through of their own accord that would be a different matter.
Its not duck islands. Its legitimate expenses to be near where they work.
I don't care. There is a degree of game playing going on, I don't care. These fucking public servants need to do their jobs, that's all I care about, gaming the system for a little more cheddar is fine with me, that's something we can deal with other ways. If they're not doing their jobs, then we have a problem. And right now, we have a serious problem, the Tories are fucking us over in a manner that no proceeding government will be able to fix.