Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
TheLadyEvenstar · 04/04/2010 10:00

Emsyj, DS1's school is local, as are my family. But within the next year we are moving out of london completely. The area itself is actually not that bad, although it does have a high crime rate. The property I am in is dreadful. The landlord is crap and leaves repairs for many months....a prime example is the shower screen door, falling on top of DS1 at the beginning of the year....glass everywhere etc, thankfully DS1 was ok but LL still hasn't been out to repair/replace it.

emsyj · 04/04/2010 10:08

We moved out of London in anticipation of having DC1 (due shortly) but we're lucky that our family are not down south, otherwise we'd have wanted to stick around to take advantage of their help & support.
You have my sympathy re: landlord - ours was bloody awful. Good luck with the escape.

Morloth · 04/04/2010 10:58

We spend 1,800 a month for a 2 bedroom flat. It is a very nice flat in a very nice area - but it is small (well by my Australian standards anyway).

London is hideously expensive.

It is just the way it is. 1,500 would be fine if they are not expected to be close to Westminster, otherwise yes it isn't going to be enough to house a family.

We have very little choice in where we live in London, part of DH's contract was to stipulate postcodes so that he could be on call. My preference would be to be further out and to have a garden and maybe another bedroom, but I am sure as hell not complaining in anyway!

Original poster
LadyBiscuit · 04/04/2010 11:03

But it isn't about housing a family surely? They already have a home presumably, this is for when they are in Westminster. Surely their children live in the family home in their constituency?

OP posts:
StarExpat · 04/04/2010 11:07

SO, they will get £1400 to expense on a flat... so if they want something nicer, something that is, say, £2000/month, then that would only mean them paying £600/month out of pocket from their salary (like all of the rest of us have to do.... use our salary to pay our rent/mortgage). £600 for rent per month in London? Bargain!

Morloth · 04/04/2010 11:32

I don't know the ins and outs of the arrangements LadyBiscuit just that 1,500 per month isn't going to get anything much bigger than a 1 (or maybe 2) bedroom flat within say 30mins of Westminster.

No idea whether they need more than that, just that it ain't gonna happen.

SparklyGothKat · 04/04/2010 11:41

our local MP commutes from London to his house every day, its 20 minutes to Kings cross from here, and he likes to be with his family, he doesn't have a second home.

Original poster
LadyBiscuit · 04/04/2010 11:54

On the market for £1,500 PCM:

luxury 2 bedroom flat in Docklands

4 bedroom house in Tooting

3 bedroom flat in Putney

Perfectly possible Morloth although I suspect that all a bit pokey by antipodean standards but then the UK is a tad more crowded

OP posts:
sarah293 · 04/04/2010 11:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster
LadyBiscuit · 04/04/2010 12:12

Riven - he has a cottage in Oxfordshire and apparently has claimed on mortgage interest and utility bills on it. He may well also own a mansion of course but then he is from a very wealthy family

OP posts:
Ponders · 04/04/2010 12:13

He doesn't - all he needs is a base for when he's in the constituency

The London house is his main one, which he bought outright. We are paying for the stonking great mansion (he claimed the max possible mortgage interest while it was possible - over £20K a year, interest only)

Ponders · 04/04/2010 12:14

The "cottage" in Oxfordshire may not be a mansion but it is a very large and expensive cottage (even for Oxon), LadyB

Ponders · 04/04/2010 12:16

pic of country house, & other interesting information, here

Rockbird · 04/04/2010 12:30

I live 16 miles outside London, I commute in every day by car. My MP, Chris Grayling, lives down the road and has a second home because it's too far out here . If he gives me petrol money I'll give him a lift in every morning. Problem solved...

sarah293 · 04/04/2010 12:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

sarah293 · 04/04/2010 12:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster
LadyBiscuit · 04/04/2010 12:35

Ah thank you Ponders. I googled and got meejah reports extolling his stainless expenses record but not surprised to find he has exploited regs to his advantage.

Rockbird - I remember the MP who lives in Stanmore at the end of the Jubilee line also claiming for second home allowance. It's a hard life

OP posts:
Ponders · 04/04/2010 13:10

And there are those married Labour MPs in adjoining London constituencies (Feltham and Heston/Brentford and Isleworth) who have an empty house in one of them - their "main home" - but both claimed on a Westminster flat, which they really live in, as their "second home".

The Keens - they tried to brazen it out at the time, haven't heard if they are stepping down or what...

Original poster
LadyBiscuit · 04/04/2010 13:14

Blimey Ponders - there were so many of them I'd forgotten about the Keens. Doesn't look like either one of them is planning on stepping down but I'd be surprised if they get re-elected. Especially given they employ their son too! Why is nepotism so bloody rife among the ruling classes I wonder. Perhaps it's because no one else will give their offspring a job

OP posts:
Ponders · 04/04/2010 13:26

Yes, blimey was my reaction too, LadyB

These people must have had principles before they were elected, surely? Why do they lose them afterwards - never mind if (nearly) everybody else is doing it & they're told it's OK

(Claiming for food at second homes always seems even worse, although the sums involved are smaller - as Ann Widdecombe said, they only have one stomach!)

junkcollector · 04/04/2010 13:32

I'm more shocked by Gaelicsheep's assertion that women with children shouldn't be MPs!

(On that allowance MPs could live in zone 3 and get the night bus- might give them some idea of the issues faced by 'real' people)

Alouiseg · 04/04/2010 13:35

The trouble is they actually do a responsible and demanding job which should really be better paid in order to attract top class candidates into the field.
We need people who've excelled in business and know how to run things efficiently but while we pay salaries which are not on par with the creme de la creme of other professions we won't get the best candidates and they will spend their time fiddling the system to make a few more quid.

If you pay peanuts....you get monkeys!

And no, am definitely not, nor married to a politician.

Morloth · 04/04/2010 14:27

Yes, but those are all south of the river. [winks]

Runs off ducking...

sarah293 · 04/04/2010 14:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Alouiseg · 04/04/2010 15:05

We need to pay enough to attract people who have been earning far in excess of that because they have reached the top of their field.

I agree that 70k is a very good salary but it doesn't compare to the salaries of (good) business people, lawyers, gp's, headteachers. A reasonably senior Fire officer can expect to earn more as can senior Police or Doctors.

In an ideal world the right people would come forward for the job because it is a vocation but we are a capitalist country within a democracy and money talks.