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

[LadyBiscuit]

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!

Anything that stops them being able to speculate on property by using their second home allowance as a way to hoard a second property sounds good to me. Horse, door bolted here of course though. If they hadn't been so damn happy with the prices of their places shooting up and up they might have stopped to look at the unsustainable lending going on in the country.

Totally agree eurostar

riven tehre was a paper out last week saying 9-5 working would be a huge step forwards for MP's anyway cutting down on expenses and allowing more people to become one. Or rather stand anyway I guess.

What really oputs women off (and I;ve turned downa few offers to stand for council seats locally, which ehre seems to be start of the climb to MP) isn't 'small' rent allowances, it's being associated with all the MP related sleaze. Well thats what did it for me anyway

I do agree with Alou that it ahs to be a devcent salary to attract those earning good salaries elsewhere, I also agree with Eurostar

Rockbird- that's a joke wrt to Grayling. DH used to commute 60 miles a day including the PITA that is the Severn toll road out of his main earnings. Shock. Doesn't everyone though?

Travel expenses should only click in above 30 miles as thats easily a basic daily commute for many people. Meals should ahve to eb taken at Westminster if they want them funded.

why do we need to pay any of it? someone please explain this to me

Well I think it deoends Hobb

I used to be in somerset and work in london once a week: they paid travel and a meal, cheap motel overnight if there for 2 days

I think thats fair- Imlived in Somerset and it was way beyond affordability on my wage

However there should eb vastly different rules for someone living in say Northumberland to someone living close enough fore people to be genrally expected to commute to London anyway

We want a representative group of people in parliament- so professionals, those whoa re more the campiagners etc and how much daddy left you to fund your term shouldn't be a factor, but normal rules of business should apply and no profit be made.

We used to get £20 for evening meal (but no catering available which MP's have), room in a motel in kennington (so we could walk and not get taxi to work which was near mi5 building), and second class rail ticket (we were encouraged top seek for deals): if people wanted first class they funded the difference

hobgoblin ??

Hmmmm, but I'm not so sure that there is that much of an eclective mix of financial and social background is there partic within the Tories? But, I get the reasoning and it must help ensure that parliament is representative. However, could there not be a system implemented whereby MPs have to apply for financial assistance in a means tested way?

It would be a great bit of experience of the welfare state too - especially if they get the local council offices to process the claims. They could be waiting months for the (second) roof over their heads.

LOL Hobb, took theem six months to process our last claim (although council were very nice about it, just several big employers in teh city here went bang at once)

Luckily we've been able to say no to teh claim now: maybe it would be good for MP's to experience the pride you can take in paying your own bills, that might be a new one (for many, I do feel sorry for those who were honest but get lumped in)

I have no objection to funding a pillow for their heads and a sofa for their (fat) bums. I object like hell to paying for redecoration because they don't like the colour, gardeners, ducking duck ponds and all that stuff. Why the bastard buggery should we pay for sky or big televisions? It makes me so angry it's given me a headache!

i like the idea of a large student halls of residence type entity for MP's. Uni's managed to do this and provide for families too. There's bound to be a block of flats or the like in London which have not been completed due to the credit crunch and would be available for the government to buy at a knocked down rate.

It equally doesn't need to be that close to westminster as they could run their own shuttle bus between the halls and the houses.

Simples!

i paid £400 in putney for my room just a few years ago (3-4), my two flatmates paid less than me so that 3-bed house in PUTNEY was definately within the £1400 budget.

ok.. so it was close to the wandsworth end of putney.. but still!!!

and the OP talks about women with children, well, would the children really live in london or would they live in the constituency.

surely if the woman MP chooses to school her children in london they'll have their family home there and rent a £1400 flat in the constituency for her when she's there.

or, the children will stay in the constituency.

either way, being a mother with children makes being an MP very very difficult unless your constituency is in daily commuting distance of london.

it's the MPs for the orkney isles etc. that i feel sorry for - they must feel like they live on an airplane rather than in either place!

Katz- exactly, or like everybody else they could just pay for a bus pass or oyster card. After all, the rest of the world has to get themselves to work don't they?

After all, if you were jobseeking and put 'I'll only take a job close enough to walk to my job becuase really I can't be expected to fund my own travel there via tube'- well, frankly I have a feeling you'd get laughed out of the job centre....

junkcollector - I was merely saying that if women with children don't like the idea of staying away from the family home for much of the week then being an MP probably isn't for them. I'd imagine that applies to most mothers (probably not all). The answer is not for the taxpayer to subsidise a family home in London.

ffs, these days there is no need to be in london. they can teleconference.

Scientists are notoriously underpaid in this country so rather a lot of them run off to America to get the funding they require. Fil is a prime example of this he went to California where funding is not an issue.

That argument would hold water Alouiseq if most of the MPs weren't career politicians. Given they have sod all experience doing anything else, why should they command high salaries? And while they earn around £65k basic, they also get a further £18k tax free housing allowance (slightly less than it was), expenses, extremely generous subsidised meals, 13 weeks' holiday, and the most lavish pension fund of pretty much any job. So in reality, their pay is closer to £110k a year. Not bad going when you've never had any proper life experience

They can commute, or pay for rent out of their own pockets. I earn exactly the median wage (24K) and commute 6 hours daily to my job in London. My travel costs are 50% of my PRE tax salary. It sucks, but it is life. These greedy MPs get absolutely no sympathy from me.

Ladybiscuit My point is if we paid market rate salaries then it would attract the best in their field rather than power crazy mandarins. We need people who have held posts of high responsibility who understand how the world works rather than just the political machine.

Riven Money isn't everything to some people but if I had held a position of responsibility and made a success of it I wouldn't take a pay cut to be an MP. I would be collecting lucrative directorships where my influence and experience would be rewarded and my interests could continue.

I agree with alouise. Of course it makes great chat to say 'put them in the travel lodge' etc, but if we do that then we will miss out on having the right calibre of people in parliament.

I'm ok with the fact that many many poeple out there earn much more than I do. They mostly have much more responsibility. It's life. If I wanted to be a high earner I could get off my arse and try to make it happen but I have neither the innate skills nor the drive required.

I'm glad that other people do though, and if they represent us then I'm happy for them to be paid commensurate with skills and experience etc.

I don't agree they should be allowed to take the piss as they have done, but the MPs salary is comparatively low (ie compared to MPs in other countries) and it was inevitable that any loopholes would be exploited.

I agree we need less of the political machines in parliament- I don't want all hiugh flioers though, I wouldn't mind a few people in the mix with charity backgrounds, former volunteers etc- partly becuase AFAICS manager = manager regardless fo what in fact they are supposed to be managing; and aprtly becuase it is an actual mix of experiences we need not just a homogenous mass of bean counters with fake grins and limp handshakes.

'Course we need the beancounetrs in there too. In proportion.

Not strictly true MorrisZapp - interesting comparison here