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

Yeah, there's no reason - if it were done properly - anyone would have to share a bathroom. And family-friendly flats could be built. Jesus there's only 600+ of them, universities accommodate many more than that.

Two words:

Olympic Village

If it were up to me, any MP within a 1 hour train journey of central London would just be given a season ticket for the train and those outside would be homed in a big block of flats just for MPs.

On PM the other day a woman from the TaxPayers Alliance said that the "Halls of Residence" idea was used in - as if you couldn't guess - Sweden and Denmark. Tory MP dismissed it by talking about women wanting their children near them (splutter) and the unpleasantness of sharing a bathroom etc etc. But he failed to note what she'd said - that a variety of accom. could be used, such as flats, houses, etc, according to need.

So the Uni accommodation model might not be so bad - Unis have halls, flats, etc, and links with private landlords. Better long term value for the govt who would receive any and all profit if these were ever sold, plus probably cheaper to administer as you don't have endless expenses claims to check.

QueenLiz - my point entirely. There isn't one anymore.

Lenin -- bet you don't have a Chinese Needlepoint rug that costs £500 to get cleaned

You can be told something is fine, but still look to your own moral/ethical code to check, surely?

lenninGrad - lady just wants a coat for her trip to the big wigs...sheesh!

Rofl!

Maybe if it goes through the payment office PW can have a Chanel or Stella McCartney number?

I think piss taking abounds. Gits. Old boy network and self policing only works if you have morals and a sense of honour.

No. Look. IMHO we should pay for MP's homes. It would be prohibitive for ordinary bods to become MPs if they had to fund their own residence, a home in London and possibly somewhere else if family and constituency are not in the same place.

We'd end up - as it used to be - with only rich knobs representing us. And so we should pay for reasonable living expenses to cover accommodation and travel to facilitate this.

That is a principle I utterly agree with because it engenders proper democracy.

But not the wormy, evil, sneaky profiting from the expenses! Which is what we're all so pissed off about surely? Mortgage interest or rent payments only, no fecking wide-screen TVs, home improvements, chandeliers.

The question is simple: when are they going to reform the rules and how are they going to enforce it transparently?

Tbh, I think alot of them were told it was fine. And actually the rules probably mean it was fine. It was allowed and percieved as fair enough.

The rules suck, stink and are an insult. The way, for example, disability living or council tax reduction claims are dragged to pieces, for a lousy sum of money. Every pound accounted for and questioned.
The arrogance of those houses, to think it is ok to have home cinema systems bought for them, when soldiers don't have bullet proof vests, and children don't have wheelchairs they need.

Argh!
Best of look PW or whoever goes. I'd combust into fury flames.

Do we get to assist in choice of coat for PW?

Does she get one on expenses?

I am particularly loving just using the word "moat" in day to day conversation.
it's not a word I use with and frequency and it is just somehow nice to have a new word for a little while.
And agree that the thought of moat dredging does conjure up something a bit dodgey.

And as I am busy on weds- i would bloody love to go myslef- vote for PW as she did such a good job last time

I was indisposed- due to partical blindness but followed it all as much as I could

I have to say becoming an MP has never looked so appealing! The Chairs! The houses! The moats! Beats time and a third at weekends on the NHS.

I know that civil servants don't work for MPs -- that's exactly my point. But why not? No one is asking the civil service to take part in party politics. What distinguishes a Minister from a lowly MP other than lower down on the foodchain. Seems to be based on tradition more than anything else.

That's a very interesting point artichokes. It would be a good one for the MN representative to raise. Is there any significant movement to alter this use of staff?

Ooo yes questions please. Pleeeease. Except they might all be the same.

How very dare you.

Phrased in terms ranging from rude and furious to poised and furious.

I'd like it pointing out that when dh was paid redundancy from the government insurance scheme due to company liquidation, every last penny of his job seekers allowance was deducted from his payment. He essentially paid himself unemplyment benefit, thereby rendering his NI contributions a joke. How can an MP have the sheer front to claim for massage chairs in the light of this.

And how can a minister in all honesty, justify a vibrating chair at tax payers expense, in todays climate of energy conservation? Did he have a wind turbine to power it?

And do the houses accept that the old boys network of 'a fair game of cricket' and 'self monitoring' has been violated by self interest and greed in the members, thus exposing the country to ridicule and contempt, whilst alienating and insulting the millions of voters facing hard financial and social realities.

ILove- civil servants don't work for MPs (unless they are ministers). Civil servants work for government not parliament.

The staff question is however v important. What value do we get from all the MPs researchers? There are many people employed by parliament to produce briefings and advice for MPs. Historically they used these briefings and had a secretary to help with correspondance. In recent years they have been allowed a larger and larger staff budget. In part this might be necessary as e-mail etc means they get much more correspondance. However, many use their staff to generate parliamentary questions etc to make them look busy and rank well on sites such as TheyWorkForYou. This is actually a real waste of public money as some MPs allow their researchers to submit hundreds of questions a day without even checking them. The Government is required to answer each question quickly so civil servants beaver away at great cost to research the answers and the MP never even reads it because he was not interested in the first place.

'Excuse me love, do you want your moat derdging whilst we're in the area? We're just finishing off a sweep for the lady up the road with the posh hanging baskets on her portico and we could do you a good price for cash'

In the meantime, where shall we post questions

I think Sweden's example is good. Rent free homes while they are in office.

Also am not sure why MPs are entitled to a staff budget when there is a perfectly good civil service.

I don't mind who goes.. but I want to know why the hell I'm paying for their bloody homes ( which is by the looks of it going to stay).. let alone anything else. I mean flipping heck, here I am saving and scrimping, to have a decent, home for me and the dc's.. and so are plenty of others, and there isn't enough council places to be had.. and yet they can have 2 homes, and we can blardy pay for it.

stop borrowing loads of money, because of all the hidious money issues, borrow less and use our flipping taxes reasonably.

if you need two homes to be an MP.. then get a second blardy job like the rest of us, if you can't afford it.

rant over.. as you were

That would be ladygarden. Not lagygarden.

I'm sure there has to be a lagygarden maintenance expenses joke in here somewhere but I just can't seem to phrase it.

Another vote for PW here - tried, tested and scarily competent.