Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

to think that really £1,450 pcm is not an unreasonable sum to expect an MP to spend on a flat?

96 replies

LadyBiscuit · 03/04/2010 22:35

This is the new plan to stop the second homes expenses scandal - each MP gets a fixed amount to spend. There was an article in the paper today saying that this would put women with children off becoming MPs because you can only afford a horrid little 1 bed on that sort of money. What world are they living in? Given you can rent a very nice 3 bedroom flat for that amount in East Dulwich or Wandsworth so hardly grim sink estates, it's not a massive hardship is it? Christ, that's more than most people have for one home, no matter about a pied a terre!

OP posts:

Ponders · 03/04/2010 22:39

YANBU

The whole MPs living standards thing is unreal to 99.9% of the country

LauraIngallsWilder · 03/04/2010 22:42

That is more than 3times what my house costs to rent

I think all mps live in an unreal little bubble

omnishambles · 03/04/2010 22:46

But its surely quite hard to get a flat for that within striking distance of the House? And if not then they are going to be spending loads of money on taxis anyway.

Rockbird · 03/04/2010 22:46

I don't give two hoots whether they spend £1000p/m or £1000000p/m. What I care about is that they are buying these places and reaping the profits when they leave the MP game. Why the hell should we fund the purchase of a second property for these people? Either put them all up in a bloody great hotel and let them sort their visiting families out in the same way that every other parent that works away from home has to, or let them buy what they want, with the property being sold and money put back into the pot for the next lot.

Ponders · 03/04/2010 22:50

Starting with D Cameron & his huge expensive house in Oxfordshire which we are paying for

Original poster

LadyBiscuit · 03/04/2010 22:51

It really, really isn't omnishambles. I live in zone 2, 20 mins on the tube from the HoP. Two double bedroom, very nice flats with gardens here cost under £1450. Seriously that is a very generous amount of money for something that is ostensibly a crash pad (or that is what MPs in Sweden get, I'm still in two minds over whether that precludes women from entering politics but I suspect not)

OP posts:

omnishambles · 03/04/2010 22:52

But the tube doesnt run all night does it - thats why so many MPs have flats within walking distance...

sarah293 · 03/04/2010 22:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Rockbird · 03/04/2010 22:54

Problem is LadyB, there were MPs who live your sort of distance away who considered that too far and still had second properties. Great big Travelodge round the corner would soon sort the wheat from the chaff.

omnishambles · 03/04/2010 22:55

Its harsh for a middle of the night vote tho isnt it...they dont need any more encouragement to be lazy - I would rather we gave them the money they needed but it meant they had to be there everyday, voting.

Original poster

LadyBiscuit · 03/04/2010 22:58

I live a £20 cab ride from Westminster. And I know for a fact that the number of instances that MPs need to be at the House after tubes have shut are few and far between (one of my nearest and dearest works there). So that's a spurious argument.

OP posts:

Ponders · 03/04/2010 23:04

By Riven Sat 03-Apr-10 22:53:15
Under 100 miles they should commute like everyone else. I do believe that will include Dave. Why cant he commute from Witney?

He doesn't need to commute from Witney - he has a perfectly serviceable (paid-for, in cash, by him ) house in London

The huge lavish Witney house is in his constituency, but he doesn't live there; we pay c £20K pa in interest on it so that he can stay there, occasionally, with his family.

Hence what Rockbird said - OK, house to stay in, but it shouldn't belong to the MP but to the state.

sarah293 · 03/04/2010 23:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

gaelicsheep · 03/04/2010 23:09

Why can they not provide MPs accommodation, "on campus" if you like? Surely as long as they don't go wild on building it (which they would of course) it would deliver savings in the long run.

I bet it'll end up costing more now that only renting, and not buying, is an allowable expense. They should be allowed to claim for a second home, but only be able to claim the mortgage interest element on the lower of the two mortgages. No claiming for fancy London homes if you own a two up two down in Northumbria.

gaelicsheep · 03/04/2010 23:10

Oh and it too would be capped of course (at considerably less than £1450 a month).

Original poster

LadyBiscuit · 03/04/2010 23:14

gaelicsheep - that would be my preference but if what they're proposing now is considering detrimental to women wanting to become MPs, you can imagine the outcry if they did that! Of course there is no way that argument is a convenient PC coathook to hang your hat on rather than lose your tidy little Mayfair PaT is there

OP posts:

gaelicsheep · 03/04/2010 23:20

I personally think that some jobs just aren't suited to most women with children. Being an MP is probably one of them. So be it IMO - it doesn't really bother me that much. Most of the younger women MPs seem to be pretty ineffectual in any case [so shoot me ].

sarah293 · 04/04/2010 08:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

emsyj · 04/04/2010 09:18

We used to pay £1300pcm for a nice spacious 2 bed house in Blackheath. There is a night bus that runs 24 hours from Westminster to Blackheath... I took it many times (including on my own).

Problem solved.

saggarmakersbottomknocker · 04/04/2010 09:25

Put them up in the Premier Inn at County Hall. Decent bed and breakfast and within spitting distance of the HoP.

I don't get this women and children malarky. These are second homes for them whilst working in London - surely the children are living at the main home and going to school there, not being carted down to London at every opportunity?

differentID · 04/04/2010 09:32

That sum is Seven times our mortgage payments!

TheLadyEvenstar · 04/04/2010 09:39

I pay £1400 for a 2 bedroom flat in a not very nice part of london. The second bedroom which is DS1's is not big enough to put DS2 into as well. there is no garden, the place is severely damp and in desperate need of repair.

I would let them rent my place, they weould soon be happy to commute.

emsyj · 04/04/2010 09:47

£1400 is a huge amount to pay to live in a not very nice part of London. We never paid that much and we always had 2 good sized bedrooms and a garden and lived in a nice area in zone 3. Is there some reason why you have to live in that particular area/property TheLady???

saggarmakersbottomknocker · 04/04/2010 09:50

Perhaps they should live in the not very nice parts of London anyway. It might give them a bit to think about.

Firawla · 04/04/2010 09:50

They can get a suitable place for that money, I don't understand the comment about women with children I thought it was supposed to be their 2nd home? If it is their first home where they keep themselves and their family why are we paying for it?
They should have like an accomodation building nearby to where they need to be and give each a room to stay in when they need to stay over nearby for work, some countries do that and it seems much clearer and not open to corruption like the 2nd home method.

Flip

1 2 3 4