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

[GeraldineMumsnet]

Editorial Intelligence in association with Sky News are inviting a Mumsnetter to attend a panel and group discussion, which will be podcast.

Here's a pdf of the invite so you can see the date/location/panel etc (which includes Helena Kennedy, Norman Baker and Derek Wyatt).

Please throw your names/nominations into the hat. We'd want whoever goes to blog or twitter, or something suitably modern, about the proceedings. It's next Wed, so it needs to be decided fairly swiftly.

No, not all corrupt, sure. But what would motivate anyone to bcm a major-party MP these days? I can't believe it is political principle, bcs none of the major parties represents distinctive political principles anymore.

I take your point Robes.

But if you want ever to get into government, you simply have to be in one of the two main parties. Because our electoral system is an anti-democratic crock of shite.

So you can have all the principles you like; if you join the Greens or the LibDems or whatever, as things stand you will never, ever be in a position to affect national politics.

I think that's what motivates a lot of people; they're prepared to squish some of their beliefs in exchange for a realistic shot at power. I'm not sure I blame them.

Anyway I have to go and judge an under-7s fancy dress competition now. Now THAT'S power.

Good lord Pee Dubya, you really are taking over the world aren't you.

policy - if you do go, can you please lick Helena Kennedy's face for me?

it's tough finding an admirable politician, outside of Tony Benn, but I don't expect anyone to lick his face on my behalf....

ps I will be in London on Wednesday, coming down from the snowy northern wastes, but I will be busy boring the arses off a load of Dept. of Justice types, so I formally delegate my licking tasks to policy.

I just know she will do it it so well.

Surely arse-boring and face licking could be combined in a daytrip?

PDubya - do you get expenses? Or a cream bun?

Whilst I do imagine many MP's will have made valid claims, I think what has annoyed me is the snivelling apologies that have ensued. All the MP's seem so shocked and horrified at the revelations. Yet it was they who bought the kitchen/tv/moat and so it seems odd they would be surprised.

I'll vote for the next man/woman/cylon who says 'it was good while it lasted but now you have all found out I'll stop it. I'll pay back if you insist but would rather not as I'm sure you can imagine'

At least that would be honest.

Though you might get flustered and arse-lick in error.

robes - I shuddered at the linking of them.....

Oi!!

and robes - Kaufman is an oily twat.

Are you going then Policywonk??

Have come late to this thread.

But am loving the renaming to PDubya!

I think MPs whose constituencies mean that they have to have a second home near Parliament should be provided with accommodation. But that is all they should be provided with.

Why not just a monthly allowance, the same for them all, with a separate travel allowance that takes into account how far they have to travel/specific fares for their destinations?

Or failing that, we should build halls of residence for them all.

I quite like the idea of making them sleep in dormitories, actually ...

PDubya

The nomination process is still wide open AFAIK.

Oh go on. I think you would look very fetching in a stetson.

Would I look fetching with a giant pretzel wedged in my oesophagus, that's the Q.

I'd love to know how these allowances fit in with the Inland Revenues rules about 'not paying an enhancement by way of expenses' - for instance, I now have to detail the exact start and end of each car journey I make as they are targeting expenses in the SE and questioning whether car claims are over paid - and making companies pay the extra tax. We also cannot claim for a chocolate bar as a meal (even though this may be your only meal on a low cost flight) as confectionary cannot be claimed for.

Somehow, this just doesn't tie up to me

Ooh ooh ooh ... can I make a point please?

One of the arguments that has come up again and again is that MP's are not paid that much, in comparison to members of the upper middle class (not normally phrased that way, normally it's a lame "equivalent position" "they'd earn more in the City" kind of way, but the Economist used UMC). However, isn't that fundamentally wrong, that they are expecting to BE upper middle class? One of the most fundamental flaws of our current political system is that MPs view it as a career, not a vocation. If they TRULY wanted to represent the people, and do the best by their constituents, they would not be that bothered about their social status and keeping up with the upper classes, while screwing the system for all it's worth. Anyway: 90% of the population in the UK earns under £40K, whereas MPs earn around £65K, before also getting second home allowance, £400 a month for food and numerous expenses paid for.

CMOT: as far as I can make out, MPs have exempted themselves from HMRC control. Convenient, eh?

Yes, bleh, I agree. Calling a salary of £65k plus allowances 'inadequate' is just shocking. If there was a bit less luxury on offer, maybe some of the egregious tossers who just want to wallow in other people's money would bugger off to industry and leave politics alone.

I met someone who was working as a researcher for one of the MPs. Oxbridge grad: being paid £8k per year. Her parents were paying her rent and a lot of her bills, and her salary had been set by the MP. It's appalling that they would even think that that's an acceptable salary, while lining their own pockets and whinging about £65K.