We're looking for a Mumsnetter to represent us at a 'News Comment Special' about MPs' expenses

There's going to be a demo in Westminster on Wednesday (this is taken from the Liberal Conspiracy site):

WE, THE PEOPLE, DEMAND THE DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.
DEMONSTRATION. HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
WEDNESDAY 20th MAY. 12 Noon till 2PM

Mrs Allison Edwards a housewife from Telford, Shropshire, mother of a severely autistic 12 year old son, furious about the battles for resources she has endured for years, has decided to act. She has been granted permission by police to hold a demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament on Wednesday 20th May, from 12-2pm during PMQ?s to call for Parliament to be dissolved.

?We need a public demonstration declaring ?no confidence? in this Parliament the present politicians will never recognise the true impact the behaviour of some MP?s over expenses has had upon us all?.

The trust is gone!

All are welcome to join in a peaceful demonstration of people power.
Contact : Mrs Allison Edwards Email address: [email protected]

Not two homes, but jobs requiring one to stay away from home on a regular basis (at the same place, as opposed to transport workers where they could end up anywhere). Trade union reps at a national level for instance. Unions usually have a cap on living expenses, and they are published annually.

Are there other, comparable, jobs for which two homes are arguably necessary? What expenses arrangements do they have to offset the costs of extra household. I.e. support for second household ok in principle, but what precedents are there for establishing reasonable limits?

Agree artichoke. Payment of interest is presumably to ensure MPs not out of pocket -- that they build up an asset without additional cost of interest and can offset its cost entirely though eventual sale. If sold at profit this rationale breaks down.

No no, I've heard nothing!

Agree that the whole second-home allowance thing needs a major overhaul though.

It went well thanks MT (at least I thought so ) - there are a couple of threads in Site Stuff from April 1 and 2 that give the low-down.

Yes, I was v disappointed in Tam.

Hi PW, how did your other gig go? I missed the memo!

I am disappointed in Tam Dalyell, thought he had more decency than that.

Agree with edam about Tory MPs who've built careers by displaying their contempt for 'benefits claimants'. They'd better not have the gall to try that one again.

Would Mumsnet invite Heather Brooke for a webchat? Please?

For employees, the definition of expenses in the taxes act is that expenses should be incurred "wholly, exclusively and necessarily". So furnishings etc would fail to meet this definition. It's a well-known standard that is universally applied.

oh bugger just realised Lupus said she can't do it. Robes, MT [vittoria] or pw would all be wonderful [though i know you haven't volunteered Robes]

I think it would be helpful if there were proper controls on MPs expenses so that they represent expenses in the normal sense of the word

I wonder if there's any correlation between the worst MPs with their snouts in the trough and those who rant about benefits claimants being on the take? Or who vote against increases in benefits, or pensions (not sure there's ever been a vote but if there has...)?

My MP is Peter Lilley. He's one of those who makes the most money from the second homes allowance, despite representing a commuter seat 25 minutes from London on the train.

Yet he slagged off people on benefits and single mothers and various other disadvantaged people when he was a minister under Thatcher - made an infamous speech to the Tory conference about having a little list (of poor people who would be targetted).

I bet the Tories who claimed for moat-cleaning and chandeliers fall into this category... that's not to excuse MPs from other parties but would be interesting to see.

Has policy been confirmed yet?

Mentioned on another thread re: the American journalist and her campaign. Didn't realize her initial application was in 2004 (and Tony Blair shredded his expenses in 2005 )

Needless to say, she didn't get much support.

american and foi

It would also prove we have more than one searingly intelligent brain on our forum...

I think Lupus would be excellent. As would pw. But maybe in the interest of fairness it should be Lupus?

Actually - not a hope in hells chance, and not challenge to you personally PW - but I'd like to go (but also could only if expenses were paid, which makes it even more unlikely I know.

It's Monkeytrousers BTW.

It's astoniushing. And we owe a lot to an independent woman journo who was writing a book on the Freeedom of Info act and decided to try a few requests under the act to look into aspects of Parliament. She found her requests being oddly blocked and so fought for 5 yrs to get expenses revealed. And then the gun was jumped when the info was leaked in advance of being made officially available. The Speaker et al fought at every turn to keep it hidden.

CPS I mean

I was really disappoointed in Kaufmann with his rug and £8000(!!!!) telly. I thought he was an honourable bloke.

And I'm v glad to hear that CPP announcement.