to think MP's second home allowance is too easily forgotten about

[freddy05]

They can claim up to £20000 a year in second home allowance from us taxpayers on top of all their other expenses claims, food entertaining, travel etc, and yet they are cutting people's benefits to the point that they are having to use food banks and cutting housing benefits for people having 'spare' rooms and totally capping benefits at £26000.

I can't quite believe that people who are supposed to be serving our country can get away with having so much money in expenses from the taxpayer and still keep a straight face while they try and pitch us all off against each other.

The nation needs to save money, we all know that, but us voters seem to be missing the real problem and we're turning on each other while those in power are getting richer and richer

I don't disagree with the idea of government owned housing for MP's, but not the back to basics type being suggested by many. If you are willing to give up several nights a week with your family then I don't think a reasonable level of comfort is unfair.

If you are willing to give up several nights a week with your family then I don't think a reasonable level of comfort is unfair

Forces standard rank accommodation should be more than adequate then. Given that many give up several months away from their families.

A job is a job is a job after all, right?

re-read that..just a point, not a dig L

'A job is a job'
I disagree. Some jobs are more important than others, whether you're comfortable with that idea or not.

excellent post OP and I couldn't' agree with you more - YANBU at all. Politicians need to take a long hard look at how much they cost the taxpayer before pointing the finger and creating (and allowing the newspapers) a pile of myths to keep us all at it in the "us and them" benefits debate.

MPs deserve a good recompense for their work. If they were paid peanuts it would become a job that only the rich could afford to do, as it was in the distant past.

As an aside...they're asking the general populous to watch their spending, why aren't they? We're all in it together....right? (where's the cynical emoction!!?)

'MPs deserve a good recompense for their work. If they were paid peanuts it would become a job that only the rich could afford to do, as it was in the distant past.'

They are not paid peanuts. They are paid £64K/annum with 12 weeks holiday and a very generous pension.

I think a rent-free one-bed apartment owned by the government or corporate housing is not inappropriate, given the salary, and a subsidised canteen serving food, no booze.

And they don't need £400/month for groceries.

lula are you married to an MP? Or do you have an MP in the family by any chance? You seem to be arguing this really strongly for a mere observer.

Of course it's wrong that these people can claim for a second home in London. They are rarely called in for night time sessions and they are supposed to be public servants and we are supposed to be cutting back on the expense of public servants. Guess it's just easier to keep the poorly paid public servants down than it is to take away privileges from the privileged.

And I think many of the politicians we have in this country are career politicians and they do it because there is money in it. Not many poor politicians around.

They're not telling people to watch their spending, where did you get that idea from? The GOVERNMENT (which is different from MPs) would love us to spend, spend, spend.

'They're not telling people to watch their spending, where did you get that idea from?'

They don't have to, their policies, particularly as applied to energy companies, are putting the squeeze on everyone.

I have no relationship to any MP whatsoever I just think its very shortsighted to suggest that reducing MPs pay and expenses will have any positive benefit. Really, what could it achieve?
I'm also irritated by the lumping in of all MPs with the current government.

It all depends on what calibre of people you want being MPs. I'd prefer them to be well paid to attract the best candidates possible. They should be the highest paid public sector workers. At the moment plenty of municipal council staff earn more. And MPs are not secure in their jobs at all. I wouldn't do the job if I could earn more elsewhere and not put up with all the hassle being an MP entails.

I got the idea from reading a varied cross section of news articles and looking at what is going on around me.

expat the rules changed after the Telegraph exposé and they can only claim for rent now - hence the scandal of MPs renting from one another that was reported a few months back. Mortgage capital was not paid before the change iirc, so the taxpayer was hardly "buying them a second house in London" and we're certainly not now.

Surely if the second housing allowance was dropped we would have more privileged people in parliament as they would be able to afford to run two houses. Parliament should be representative of the population, so second house allowance must be necessary.

Politicians don't become rich on their MPs salary. The fact that so many of the current cabinet and shadow cabinet are independently wealthy should tell you something, and it isn't that MPs are paid too much. It says that people who want to make money aren't becoming MPs.

Most of this argument seems to boil down to 'if some are suffering, everyone should', which is pretty childish.
Have a look at any charity and you'll find their top people are put up in nice hotels when they travel and can claim for all their meals. Look at any private company and you'll find the same, but nicer hotels and fancier meals. Why are we picking on MPs?

I think the problem is that they can make personal financial gain from property that has been paid for which they then get to keep. Where they are provided to live doesn't need to be awful to punish them, but it's not right that they can benefit so hugely. Especially if their constituency is within commutable distance.

Also, I have worked with quite a few MPs and would question the amount of responsibility they actually have, at least in the context of how the system operates now (eg most votes in the House whipped and along party lines) and the quality of engagement /knowledge I've seen from some. Not all!!

'I just think its very shortsighted to suggest that reducing MPs pay and expenses will have any positive benefit. Really, what could it achieve?'

Their canteen and bar cost the taxpayer £6m in 2011. What would it achieve? Some savings is still a savings! Capping their housing allowance to be in line with the rent on a one-bed flat isn't inappropriate.

I very much agree with homes being provided for our MP's so that those representing constituencies in the north can attend parliament and represent the view of the people it is important that anyone who wants to be an MP and can gather enough support to be elected is able to afford to do that. My point though was that they are paid well above the £255 a week rate that benefit claimants in that area are entitled to for one person accommodation and any more rooms than that are by the rules of the bedroom tax not required by the MP.

State owned accommodation would be a brilliant idea once it had been paid for as it would be a national asset and would cost nothing in rent but that is kind of impractical right now.

I am though deeply concerned that the country has come to a point where we are fighting amongst ourselves about who deserves an extra room in their house or how far benefits to the sick or disabled or those escaping violent marriages or those with sick children should be cut when there are great excesses happening at the top of our society.

They don't need to run two houses. They need accommodation which is adequate to support their being available for the HoC whilst away from their actual home.

'they can only claim for rent now - hence the scandal of MPs renting from one another that was reported a few months back. Mortgage capital was not paid before the change iirc, so the taxpayer was hardly "buying them a second house in London" and we're certainly not now. '

If they are renting from each other then that rent is going to pay the other's mortgage on the place. We are therefore still buying them a free second home in London.

Oh so maybe I got it wrong re ability to benefit from second house if the rules have been changed.

'I very much agree with homes being provided for our MP's so that those representing constituencies in the north can attend parliament'

I agree, too - corporate housing or government-owned one-bed flats a la the MOD.

£50/week grocery allowance - that's plenty for one person.

Keep the subsidised canteen and drop the bar.

Ha! Yep they're working so hard they have 2nd, 3rd and sometimes 4th jobs!!

They should builds tower block where they get rooms to stay for the duration of their contract. No second homes, no expenses outside of running their offices and no employing family members.

As for it meaning only the rich will apply is bullshit. There are plenty of people who will do that job for that money and do it well. Besides there's 20 odd millionaires in the cabinet at the moment-