I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.
It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.
I think we can all agree spending months on a Caribbean island billing at £X000s a day is the bracing cold shower of real worldness that we all need.
That's up to voters to judge if its what we need or not, but it is what some people do in the real world, yes.
A bigger issue for me is why we as taxpayers have apparently paid for a mortgage for him on expenses. Someone working a minimum wage job on Universal Credit can't use Housing Benefit to pay for a mortgage, even if it would be cheaper than paying rent, so why should he be able to claim a mortgage on expenses? Why shouldn't the same rules apply?
I believe they do now. But MPs used to be able to claim mortgages on expenses. Which was a bad system.
I’m open in principle to mortgage interest perhaps being an allowable expense but only during times Parliament is in session.
That was a huge cause of the expenses scandal last time. Can NEVER be allowed to happen again.
MPs were flipping their addresses around to direct expenses towards a series of houses one after the other. Or redesignating main residence to London to access a bigger mortgage than could exist in the constituency which could be put through expenses to get more cash. Then, because 'reasonable maintenance' was covered, MPs were doing house renovations with the expenses.
Then because addresses were redacted "for security reasons", no one was able to detect the expenses fraud until somebody stole the data from Parliament, and sold it to the Telegraph.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
Indeed. The problem is MPs' buying flats and houses and us paying for it; meanwhile the MP enjoys the capital gain, charges us for all sorts of home improvements, flips their properties about so that their designated actual home is forever changing, and then ends up renting out the property we have mostly paid for and spending the rent themselves.
Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.
Why am I paying for the London home of a wealthy MP if they own ANOTHER London property they are renting to someone else? That’s blatant graft. I naively thought all this had been sorted with the expenses scandal, yet not?
Many will feel similarly
As an MP he is entitled to rent for property in London. He is rich and has a range of investments. Is he really not allowed to invest in the London property market just because he’s an MP? Is the market to be left exclusively to Russian oligarchs and money laundering?
A cri de coeur that a Tory mp should be allowed to get in the trough with oligarchs and money launderers, fair brings a lump to the throat!
Inflation could do for Johnson, far more than seems likely for Second-Jobs Gate.
Biden firefighting 6% inflation in US.
Meanwhile: "official figures from Chinese factories on Wednesday pointed to producer prices climbing at their fastest pace in 26 years amid elevated raw material costs and power shortages.
Chinese factory gate prices jumped 13.5pc year-on-year in October" (Telegraph)
If China continues its zero covid strategy there could be long term economic disruption there and a steady shift of supply chains away from it.
I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.
It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.
I think we can all agree spending months on a Caribbean island billing at £X000s a day is the bracing cold shower of real worldness that we all need.
That's up to voters to judge if its what we need or not, but it is what some people do in the real world, yes.
A bigger issue for me is why we as taxpayers have apparently paid for a mortgage for him on expenses. Someone working a minimum wage job on Universal Credit can't use Housing Benefit to pay for a mortgage, even if it would be cheaper than paying rent, so why should he be able to claim a mortgage on expenses? Why shouldn't the same rules apply?
I believe they do now. But MPs used to be able to claim mortgages on expenses. Which was a bad system.
I’m open in principle to mortgage interest perhaps being an allowable expense but only during times Parliament is in session.
That’s a terrible idea, unless the state owns the property at the end.
There are now at least three quite distinct issues, and if they can be made a collective one by confusion could touch all parties a lot. So the strategy is important.
1) There is cash for political influence - anything between brown envelopes and the subtleties of the old boy network
2) There is second jobs - anything from Labour chappies doing a shift at boilermaking to QCs in agreeable bits of the old empire.
3) There is the general expenses/property on the tax payer/owning rental property and renting another at our expense/claims for £1 for milk.
The other parties will want to keep it to (1) if they can. The government will want either the whole thing to go away or 'conflate' (word of the week) all three so that all parties are equally seen as sub optimal.
IMHO a QC making millions in whatever lawful way is only a matter for his local party and his electors.
But the same person claiming a few quid for a doughnut, or doing something that looks like (lawfully) maximising property income via the expenses system may well find that it is those things that people find less acceptable. And I suspect this will be a cross party problem.
I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.
It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.
Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.
If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to
I think it's that phenomenon where the edge case/emotional impact generates a lot of debate, whilst clear cut examples of corruption don't, because they are obvious so little to discuss.
But Johnson has assured us that there's little or no corruption here.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
Indeed. The problem is MPs' buying flats and houses and us paying for it; meanwhile the MP enjoys the capital gain, charges us for all sorts of home improvements, flips their properties about so that their designated actual home is forever changing, and then ends up renting out the property we have mostly paid for and spending the rent themselves.
Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.
Why am I paying for the London home of a wealthy MP if they own ANOTHER London property they are renting to someone else? That’s blatant graft. I naively thought all this had been sorted with the expenses scandal, yet not?
Many will feel similarly
As an MP he is entitled to rent for property in London. He is rich and has a range of investments. Is he really not allowed to invest in the London property market just because he’s an MP? Is the market to be left exclusively to Russian oligarchs and money laundering?
Don't be silly. He or she can invest if they want. But second accommodation needed for their job should be rented and reimbursed (or, even better, why doesn't Parliament procure a travelodge somewhere?)
I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.
It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.
Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.
If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to
Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
In Cox's case there is no gravy train.
He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
Being an MP is a Part Time job. Every single Minister in Parliament has a Second Job - being a Minister.
Nope being a minister is a promotion not a second job - I refuse to engage with your convenient fiction.
No, its a second job. Hence why they can be a Minister and not an MP by joining the Lords - and nobody would claim being a Lord is a Full Time job, hence why they get an attendance allowance instead.
In most of the world Ministers are not members of the legislature and are a full time job. Do you really think that being Foreign Secretary is "just a promotion" and not a job in its own right? Why isn't her counterpart Blinken in the US Congress?
Ministers having too much to do under our system is a completely different debate to whether MPs have enough to do.
They’re supposed to be full-time legislators ffs.
They are representatives of the voters primarily, not legislators
I think it's that phenomenon where the edge case/emotional impact generates a lot of debate, whilst clear cut examples of corruption don't, because they are obvious so little to discuss.
But Johnson has assured us that there's little or no corruption here.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
Indeed. The problem is MPs' buying flats and houses and us paying for it; meanwhile the MP enjoys the capital gain, charges us for all sorts of home improvements, flips their properties about so that their designated actual home is forever changing, and then ends up renting out the property we have mostly paid for and spending the rent themselves.
Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.
Why am I paying for the London home of a wealthy MP if they own ANOTHER London property they are renting to someone else? That’s blatant graft. I naively thought all this had been sorted with the expenses scandal, yet not?
Many will feel similarly
As an MP he is entitled to rent for property in London. He is rich and has a range of investments. Is he really not allowed to invest in the London property market just because he’s an MP? Is the market to be left exclusively to Russian oligarchs and money laundering?
Don't be silly. He or she can invest if they want. But second accommodation needed for their job should be rented and reimbursed (or, even better, why doesn't Parliament procure a travelodge somewhere?)
why doesn't Parliament procure a travelodge somewhere?
Just think of the likely state of the any public areas!
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
Indeed. The problem is MPs' buying flats and houses and us paying for it; meanwhile the MP enjoys the capital gain, charges us for all sorts of home improvements, flips their properties about so that their designated actual home is forever changing, and then ends up renting out the property we have mostly paid for and spending the rent themselves.
Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.
Why am I paying for the London home of a wealthy MP if they own ANOTHER London property they are renting to someone else? That’s blatant graft. I naively thought all this had been sorted with the expenses scandal, yet not?
Many will feel similarly
As an MP he is entitled to rent for property in London. He is rich and has a range of investments. Is he really not allowed to invest in the London property market just because he’s an MP? Is the market to be left exclusively to Russian oligarchs and money laundering?
A cri de couer that a Tory mp should be allowed to get in the trough with oligarchs and money launderers, fair brings a lump to the throat!
Why do you say "Tory MP", when it is across parties. I've just pointed our Chris Bryant as one of the beneficiaries.
(I'll give you that the SNP are not much in on this particular trough as there were only 6 of them in Westminster when the bovine excrement hit the rotatory cooling device on the old system).
There are now at least three quite distinct issues, and if they can be made a collective one by confusion could touch all parties a lot. So the strategy is important.
1) There is cash for political influence - anything between brown envelopes and the subtleties of the old boy network
2) There is second jobs - anything from Labour chappies doing a shift at boilermaking to QCs in agreeable bits of the old empire.
3) There is the general expenses/property on the tax payer/owning rental property and renting another at our expense/claims for £1 for milk.
The other parties will want to keep it to (1) if they can. The government will want either the whole thing to go away or 'conflate' (word of the week) all three so that all parties are equally seen as sub optimal.
IMHO a QC making millions in whatever lawful way is only a matter for his local party and his electors.
But the same person claiming a few quid for a doughnut, or doing something that looks like (lawfully) maximising property income via the expenses system may well find that it is those things that people find less acceptable. And I suspect this will be a cross party problem.
Good points but I think the days when Labour MPs knew how to make boilers ended about 25 years ago. Dennis Skinner was the last of the breed of genuine working class Labour MPs who had been in the mines or the factories and he lost his seat in 2019.
Now you might be able to find Labour MPs who can lecture in Marxist gender studies or advise on human rights or trade union law, I doubt you can find many who could change a lightbulb let alone do a shift at boilermaking
Some news organisations don't like to name people who have mental health issues in their stories and she was diagnosed with I think PTSD in the summer and has said that's what happened on the trip to Gibraltar.
Morning all! Remember that Cox is the current Act in the play. We have the Electoral Commission into the money just resting in CCHQ accounts for the Boris flat refurb, to be followed by the Standards Commissioner probe into the same. Plus the fall out of the much raked over by all this. Plus peerages and the PPE contracts.
The only way this story goes away is if they have run out of new things to report. We are a long way off that point so the story rumbles along. I expect Ben Bradley to feel the heat at some point soon - he cannot seriously claim to be working a 60 hour week running Notts CC and East Midlands Councils forum thingy AND functioning as an MP on top.
I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.
It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.
Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.
If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to
Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
In Cox's case there is no gravy train.
He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
Being an MP is a Part Time job. Every single Minister in Parliament has a Second Job - being a Minister.
Nope being a minister is a promotion not a second job - I refuse to engage with your convenient fiction.
No, its a second job. Hence why they can be a Minister and not an MP by joining the Lords - and nobody would claim being a Lord is a Full Time job, hence why they get an attendance allowance instead.
In most of the world Ministers are not members of the legislature and are a full time job. Do you really think that being Foreign Secretary is "just a promotion" and not a job in its own right? Why isn't her counterpart Blinken in the US Congress?
Ministers having too much to do under our system is a completely different debate to whether MPs have enough to do.
They’re supposed to be full-time legislators ffs.
The issue there is should MPs be expected to work 70 or 80 hour weeks as part of their MP job role?
I don't think that would be legal.
And so, why is it unacceptable for them to work hours 48-60 (say) on job 2, and how can you prevent them?
IMO the whole "part time MPs working part time" attack line, whilst they actually doing more than 40 hours a week on their MP work, has no bite whatsoever.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.
The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?
They're not.
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.
All MPs should have the same rights to claim expenses. If one MP chooses to rent out a flat they own and rent an alternative in expenses that should be permissible.
I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.
It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.
Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.
If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to
Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
In Cox's case there is no gravy train.
He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
Until the middle of the last century most MPs worked in the day at their previous profession, often in the city or the law courts and then debated and voted in the evening when Commons sittings began
The 20th century was pretty much a disaster for the UK. Maybe if they had committed to the job we might have faired a bit better.
Was it? We ended it more prosperous than we had ever been and won 2 world wars.
The practice was in any case most common in the 19th century rather than the 20th century, by the Blair era the Commons sittings were mainly in the day
There are now at least three quite distinct issues, and if they can be made a collective one by confusion could touch all parties a lot. So the strategy is important.
1) There is cash for political influence - anything between brown envelopes and the subtleties of the old boy network
2) There is second jobs - anything from Labour chappies doing a shift at boilermaking to QCs in agreeable bits of the old empire.
3) There is the general expenses/property on the tax payer/owning rental property and renting another at our expense/claims for £1 for milk.
The other parties will want to keep it to (1) if they can. The government will want either the whole thing to go away or 'conflate' (word of the week) all three so that all parties are equally seen as sub optimal.
IMHO a QC making millions in whatever lawful way is only a matter for his local party and his electors.
But the same person claiming a few quid for a doughnut, or doing something that looks like (lawfully) maximising property income via the expenses system may well find that it is those things that people find less acceptable. And I suspect this will be a cross party problem.
Good points but I think the days when Labour MPs knew how to make boilers ended about 25 years ago. Dennis Skinner was the last of the breed of genuine working class Labour MPs who had been in the mines or the factories and he lost his seat in 2019.
Now you might be able to find Labour MPs who can lecture in Marxist gender studies or advise on human rights or trade union law, I doubt you can find many who could change a lightbulb let alone do a shift at boilermaking
Funny and not entirely unfair. I can change a lightbulb, but that's about as far as it goes...
Buy a block of basic student like flats. Offer that to MPs to use whilst they're in London. Stick a canteen at the bottom. Job done.
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like this
But make them big, luxury flats owned by the state in a nice part of Westminster. So the state ultimately gets the capital value of the investment - but the MPs get free accommodation in a very agreeable part of town
It would be a decent perk of the job. All MPs would be equal. No one would be forced to live there but if they decide not to, they won’t get any expenses for somewhere else
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.
The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?
They're not.
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.
All MPs should have the same rights to claim expenses. If one MP chooses to rent out a flat they own and rent an alternative in expenses that should be permissible.
Your language reveals your mindset. Expenses aren't pay.
No-one is being "penalised" if they already have accommodation near their work, since those who are having it rented with no financial benefit to themselves aren't benefitting financially.
I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.
It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.
I think we can all agree spending months on a Caribbean island billing at £X000s a day is the bracing cold shower of real worldness that we all need.
That's up to voters to judge if its what we need or not, but it is what some people do in the real world, yes.
A bigger issue for me is why we as taxpayers have apparently paid for a mortgage for him on expenses. Someone working a minimum wage job on Universal Credit can't use Housing Benefit to pay for a mortgage, even if it would be cheaper than paying rent, so why should he be able to claim a mortgage on expenses? Why shouldn't the same rules apply?
I believe they do now. But MPs used to be able to claim mortgages on expenses. Which was a bad system.
I’m open in principle to mortgage interest perhaps being an allowable expense but only during times Parliament is in session.
No, public money shouldn't be subsidising house purchase at all
If MPs are allowed to expense rent for a London abode, then taxpayers cash is subsidising the MP's landlord.
I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.
It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.
I think we can all agree spending months on a Caribbean island billing at £X000s a day is the bracing cold shower of real worldness that we all need.
That's up to voters to judge if its what we need or not, but it is what some people do in the real world, yes.
A bigger issue for me is why we as taxpayers have apparently paid for a mortgage for him on expenses. Someone working a minimum wage job on Universal Credit can't use Housing Benefit to pay for a mortgage, even if it would be cheaper than paying rent, so why should he be able to claim a mortgage on expenses? Why shouldn't the same rules apply?
I believe they do now. But MPs used to be able to claim mortgages on expenses. Which was a bad system.
I’m open in principle to mortgage interest perhaps being an allowable expense but only during times Parliament is in session.
No, public money shouldn't be subsidising house purchase at all
If the MPs are allowed to expense rent for a London abode, then taxpayers cash is subsidising their landlord.
You'd certainly need rules to make sure MPs don't rent from friends/party associates/family members.
If the arrangement is strictly commercial, there isn't a problem
Finally the world is waking up to what I have been saying for decades, the Welsh rugby union fans are vile people who deserve to play behind closed doors for at least a century.
The Principality Stadium has been branded "the world's biggest pub" as the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) faces calls to address fans' behaviour.
Saturday's match between Wales and South Africa was marred by a supporter who ran on to the pitch and disrupted an attempt from the home side to score a try, prompting him to receive a lifetime ban at the stadium.
During the previous weekend's game against New Zealand, serial pitch invader Daniel Jarvis joined the All Blacks' anthem line-up before being thrown out of the venue.
Off-field concerns are nothing new for the 74,500-capacity arena in Cardiff, where excessive drinking has led to a disabled supporter being abused and an increase in what has been described as "people continually behaving unpleasantly, aggressively and rudely" in recent years.
Now with two high-profile pitch invasions in the space of a week, bosses at the Principality Stadium and WRU are being urged to take action.
I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.
It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.
I think we can all agree spending months on a Caribbean island billing at £X000s a day is the bracing cold shower of real worldness that we all need.
That's up to voters to judge if its what we need or not, but it is what some people do in the real world, yes.
A bigger issue for me is why we as taxpayers have apparently paid for a mortgage for him on expenses. Someone working a minimum wage job on Universal Credit can't use Housing Benefit to pay for a mortgage, even if it would be cheaper than paying rent, so why should he be able to claim a mortgage on expenses? Why shouldn't the same rules apply?
I believe they do now. But MPs used to be able to claim mortgages on expenses. Which was a bad system.
I’m open in principle to mortgage interest perhaps being an allowable expense but only during times Parliament is in session.
That was a huge cause of the expenses scandal last time. Can NEVER be allowed to happen again.
MPs were flipping their addresses around to direct expenses towards a series of houses one after the other. Or redesignating main residence to London to access a bigger mortgage than could exist in the constituency which could be put through expenses to get more cash. Then, because 'reasonable maintenance' was covered, MPs were doing house renovations with the expenses.
Then because addresses were redacted "for security reasons", no one was able to detect the expenses fraud until somebody stole the data from Parliament, and sold it to the Telegraph.
It is easy to get confused even if you are the Housing Minister, as when Robert Jenrick had a different main residence for Covid reasons than for expenses claims.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
Indeed. The problem is MPs' buying flats and houses and us paying for it; meanwhile the MP enjoys the capital gain, charges us for all sorts of home improvements, flips their properties about so that their designated actual home is forever changing, and then ends up renting out the property we have mostly paid for and spending the rent themselves.
Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.
Why am I paying for the London home of a wealthy MP if they own ANOTHER London property they are renting to someone else? That’s blatant graft. I naively thought all this had been sorted with the expenses scandal, yet not?
Many will feel similarly
As an MP he is entitled to rent for property in London. He is rich and has a range of investments. Is he really not allowed to invest in the London property market just because he’s an MP? Is the market to be left exclusively to Russian oligarchs and money laundering?
A cri de couer that a Tory mp should be allowed to get in the trough with oligarchs and money launderers, fair brings a lump to the throat!
Why do you say "Tory MP", when it is across parties. I've just pointed our Chris Bryant as one of the beneficiaries.
(I'll give you that the SNP are not much in on this particular trough as there were only 6 of them in Westminster when the bovine excrement hit the rotatory cooling device on the old system).
I say Tory mp because it was a Tory mp mentioned in the post to which I was replying. I’d hope one wouldn’t need to be Einstein to comprehend that, but accept that the ever vigilant Tory rearguard will be whatabouting to the bitter end.
Buy a block of basic student like flats. Offer that to MPs to use whilst they're in London. Stick a canteen at the bottom. Job done.
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like this
But make them big, luxury flats owned by the state in a nice part of Westminster. So the state ultimately gets the capital value of the investment - but the MPs get free accommodation in a very agreeable part of town
It would be a decent perk of the job. All MPs would be equal. No one would be forced to live there but if they decide not to, they won’t get any expenses for somewhere else
Simple.
What a wonderful target for terrorists / murderers / lunatics.
Buy a block of basic student like flats. Offer that to MPs to use whilst they're in London. Stick a canteen at the bottom. Job done.
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like this
But make them big, luxury flats owned by the state in a nice part of Westminster. So the state ultimately gets the capital value of the investment - but the MPs get free accommodation in a very agreeable part of town
It would be a decent perk of the job. All MPs would be equal. No one would be forced to live there but if they decide not to, they won’t get any expenses for somewhere else
Simple.
Wasn't there somewhere like that at one time? Dolphin Square, Court or something like that. Got, after a while, a slightly 'iffy' reputation.
Buy a block of basic student like flats. Offer that to MPs to use whilst they're in London. Stick a canteen at the bottom. Job done.
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like this
But make them big, luxury flats owned by the state in a nice part of Westminster. So the state ultimately gets the capital value of the investment - but the MPs get free accommodation in a very agreeable part of town
It would be a decent perk of the job. All MPs would be equal. No one would be forced to live there but if they decide not to, they won’t get any expenses for somewhere else
Simple.
What a wonderful target for terrorists / murderers / lunatics.
Buy a block of basic student like flats. Offer that to MPs to use whilst they're in London. Stick a canteen at the bottom. Job done.
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like this
But make them big, luxury flats owned by the state in a nice part of Westminster. So the state ultimately gets the capital value of the investment - but the MPs get free accommodation in a very agreeable part of town
It would be a decent perk of the job. All MPs would be equal. No one would be forced to live there but if they decide not to, they won’t get any expenses for somewhere else
Simple.
What a wonderful target for terrorists / murderers / lunatics.
Buy a block of basic student like flats. Offer that to MPs to use whilst they're in London. Stick a canteen at the bottom. Job done.
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like this
But make them big, luxury flats owned by the state in a nice part of Westminster. So the state ultimately gets the capital value of the investment - but the MPs get free accommodation in a very agreeable part of town
It would be a decent perk of the job. All MPs would be equal. No one would be forced to live there but if they decide not to, they won’t get any expenses for somewhere else
Simple.
What a wonderful target for terrorists / murderers / lunatics.
You'd right there's a risk from the first two (although you could say the same about Portcullis House), but the third lot are mostly inside already.
Buy a block of basic student like flats. Offer that to MPs to use whilst they're in London. Stick a canteen at the bottom. Job done.
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like this
But make them big, luxury flats owned by the state in a nice part of Westminster. So the state ultimately gets the capital value of the investment - but the MPs get free accommodation in a very agreeable part of town
It would be a decent perk of the job. All MPs would be equal. No one would be forced to live there but if they decide not to, they won’t get any expenses for somewhere else
Simple.
What a wonderful target for terrorists / murderers / lunatics.
Except they’d all be much more secure in one building monitored and guarded by the state
Chatted to various MPs and political journalists at COP. The general view is that sleaze isn't especially cutting through - people can see there's a problem and they do think the Tories are significantly worse, but their expectations were low anyway and tbh they aren't very interested - in particular, it's not coming up on the doorstep in Bexley. On the other hand, almost nobody thinks the government is very competent, and that is a stronger suit for Labour, since people find Keir boringly managerial but they do think he inspires confidence, precisely as a manager. Reeves is seen as doing well as Shadow Chancellor - everyone I talked to likes Dodds personally, but they think Reeves has more of a cutting edge. On the whole, the Labour MPs were moderately confident that progress is being made.
COP is seen by most of the people I talked to (mostly not political types) as a half-full glass, which is better than expected though falling short of what most think is actually needed. I was struck by the genuine enthusiasm and engagement of the delegates, including people from places that I know embarassingly little about (Guinea, Costa Rica, Madagascar...) - I'd expected a high proportion of portly time-servers on a jolly, but that really wasn't in evidence. Everyone had an agenda, but there was a consensus that there was a real climate problem and we all had to muck in.
Buy a block of basic student like flats. Offer that to MPs to use whilst they're in London. Stick a canteen at the bottom. Job done.
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like this
But make them big, luxury flats owned by the state in a nice part of Westminster. So the state ultimately gets the capital value of the investment - but the MPs get free accommodation in a very agreeable part of town
It would be a decent perk of the job. All MPs would be equal. No one would be forced to live there but if they decide not to, they won’t get any expenses for somewhere else
Simple.
Wasn't there somewhere like that at one time? Dolphin Square, Court or something like that. Got, after a while, a slightly 'iffy' reputation.
Dolphin Square. But it was never official, just a block used by a lot of MPs because of proximity. And yes it got a seedy rep
I thought the Mail was supposed to be antagonistic to the government?
This is such helpful coverage.
It diverts attention from the really egregious actions of buying influence, access and contracts. It widens the scandal to one that includes MPs from all parties, not just the Tories. And for all that people will be riled up for a while it's really politics of envy stuff which has the potential to make the opposition look like a bunch of puritanical killjoys.
I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.
It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.
Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.
If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to
Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
In Cox's case there is no gravy train.
He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
Until the middle of the last century most MPs worked in the day at their previous profession, often in the city or the law courts and then debated and voted in the evening when Commons sittings began
The 20th century was pretty much a disaster for the UK. Maybe if they had committed to the job we might have faired a bit better.
Was it? We ended it more prosperous than we had ever been and won 2 world wars.
The practice was in any case most common in the 19th century rather than the 20th century, by the Blair era the Commons sittings were mainly in the day
We were on the winning side in WWII certainly. I don't think that if you, in particular, thought about it you'd say we 'won'. I on the other hand, regard the social improvements, including public ownership of the 'commanding heights of the economy' after WWII as a major step forward.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.
The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?
They're not.
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.
All MPs should have the same rights to claim expenses. If one MP chooses to rent out a flat they own and rent an alternative in expenses that should be permissible.
Does anyone know what the rule is for housing benefit if you own a home you're letting out, can you then claim for another home?
I doubt it but I don't know. I don't see why MPs should be treated any differently to the rules they have set for others, so if its not allowed for them it shouldn't be for MPs but as I said I don't know.
I think it's that phenomenon where the edge case/emotional impact generates a lot of debate, whilst clear cut examples of corruption don't, because they are obvious so little to discuss.
But Johnson has assured us that there's little or no corruption here.
A former Welsh secretary took a £15,000-a-year job at a diagnostics company a few weeks before it was part of a consortium that secured a £75 million government contract for lateral flow tests.
Alun Cairns is the latest Conservative MP to be revealed as having worked as a paid adviser to a company that was awarded valuable government contracts during the pandemic.
Alongside parliamentary duties, he agreed to work up to 70 hours a year for the BBI Group as a senior adviser “providing strategic advice to the board”.
Finally the world is waking up to what I have been saying for decades, the Welsh rugby union fans are vile people who deserve to play behind closed doors for at least a century.
The Principality Stadium has been branded "the world's biggest pub" as the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) faces calls to address fans' behaviour.
Saturday's match between Wales and South Africa was marred by a supporter who ran on to the pitch and disrupted an attempt from the home side to score a try, prompting him to receive a lifetime ban at the stadium.
During the previous weekend's game against New Zealand, serial pitch invader Daniel Jarvis joined the All Blacks' anthem line-up before being thrown out of the venue.
Off-field concerns are nothing new for the 74,500-capacity arena in Cardiff, where excessive drinking has led to a disabled supporter being abused and an increase in what has been described as "people continually behaving unpleasantly, aggressively and rudely" in recent years.
Now with two high-profile pitch invasions in the space of a week, bosses at the Principality Stadium and WRU are being urged to take action.
I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.
It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.
I think we can all agree spending months on a Caribbean island billing at £X000s a day is the bracing cold shower of real worldness that we all need.
That's up to voters to judge if its what we need or not, but it is what some people do in the real world, yes.
A bigger issue for me is why we as taxpayers have apparently paid for a mortgage for him on expenses. Someone working a minimum wage job on Universal Credit can't use Housing Benefit to pay for a mortgage, even if it would be cheaper than paying rent, so why should he be able to claim a mortgage on expenses? Why shouldn't the same rules apply?
I believe they do now. But MPs used to be able to claim mortgages on expenses. Which was a bad system.
I’m open in principle to mortgage interest perhaps being an allowable expense but only during times Parliament is in session.
That was a huge cause of the expenses scandal last time. Can NEVER be allowed to happen again.
MPs were flipping their addresses around to direct expenses towards a series of houses one after the other. Or redesignating main residence to London to access a bigger mortgage than could exist in the constituency which could be put through expenses to get more cash. Then, because 'reasonable maintenance' was covered, MPs were doing house renovations with the expenses.
Then because addresses were redacted "for security reasons", no one was able to detect the expenses fraud until somebody stole the data from Parliament, and sold it to the Telegraph.
It is easy to get confused even if you are the Housing Minister, as when Robert Jenrick had a different main residence for Covid reasons than for expenses claims.
Which brings us back to conflicts of interest.
We have had double digit house price inflation for decades.
How many MPs were personally, directly benefiting from the same?
It's an interesting one - even buying a property can be a conflict of interest.
And even those who weren't directly thinking "If I stop more houses being built, I get richer"... how many wafted along - "Things are great. The Whips like me. The wife is happy. The house has gone up in value. All good here."...
A former Welsh secretary took a £15,000-a-year job at a diagnostics company a few weeks before it was part of a consortium that secured a £75 million government contract for lateral flow tests.
Alun Cairns is the latest Conservative MP to be revealed as having worked as a paid adviser to a company that was awarded valuable government contracts during the pandemic.
Alongside parliamentary duties, he agreed to work up to 70 hours a year for the BBI Group as a senior adviser “providing strategic advice to the board”.
Buy a block of basic student like flats. Offer that to MPs to use whilst they're in London. Stick a canteen at the bottom. Job done.
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like this
But make them big, luxury flats owned by the state in a nice part of Westminster. So the state ultimately gets the capital value of the investment - but the MPs get free accommodation in a very agreeable part of town
It would be a decent perk of the job. All MPs would be equal. No one would be forced to live there but if they decide not to, they won’t get any expenses for somewhere else
Simple.
Wasn't there somewhere like that at one time? Dolphin Square, Court or something like that. Got, after a while, a slightly 'iffy' reputation.
Dolphin Square. But it was never official, just a block used by a lot of MPs because of proximity. And yes it got a seedy rep
Also really ugly
But super convenient. You could walk to Chelsea or the West End.
Only slight downside was that Lupus Street was (and still is I believe) pretty iffy.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
Indeed. The problem is MPs' buying flats and houses and us paying for it; meanwhile the MP enjoys the capital gain, charges us for all sorts of home improvements, flips their properties about so that their designated actual home is forever changing, and then ends up renting out the property we have mostly paid for and spending the rent themselves.
Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.
Why am I paying for the London home of a wealthy MP if they own ANOTHER London property they are renting to someone else? That’s blatant graft. I naively thought all this had been sorted with the expenses scandal, yet not?
Many will feel similarly
As an MP he is entitled to rent for property in London. He is rich and has a range of investments. Is he really not allowed to invest in the London property market just because he’s an MP? Is the market to be left exclusively to Russian oligarchs and money laundering?
If you own a property in London, suitable to live in, you should not be allowed to claim the rent on a different property in London, in which to live.
The expenses are there to help you do the job, not to fund your property investments. That’s it. It’s that basic
This is why we have to go for taxpayer-owned flats provided for MPs now. Get rid of all the potential for making a profit out of the arrangement.
Forget Cox, the IDS stuff is still boiling my piss.
I am actually tempted to make a complaint to The Met, that's how angry I am at it.
That’s far more serious
The only question for me is the timeline. He was an NED of the company in question 10 years ago. If he was a consultant a significant period of time ok that would probably be ok. If he’s currently a consultant then he deserves to be kicked out of the house
Chatted to various MPs and political journalists at COP. The general view is that sleaze isn't especially cutting through - people can see there's a problem and they do think the Tories are significantly worse, but their expectations were low anyway and tbh they aren't very interested - in particular, it's not coming up on the doorstep in Bexley. On the other hand, almost nobody thinks the government is very competent, and that is a stronger suit for Labour, since people find Keir boringly managerial but they do think he inspires confidence, precisely as a manager. Reeves is seen as doing well as Shadow Chancellor - everyone I talked to likes Dodds personally, but they think Reeves has more of a cutting edge. On the whole, the Labour MPs were moderately confident that progress is being made.
COP is seen by most of the people I talked to (mostly not political types) as a half-full glass, which is better than expected though falling short of what most think is actually needed. I was struck by the genuine enthusiasm and engagement of the delegates, including people from places that I know embarassingly little about (Guinea, Costa Rica, Madagascar...) - I'd expected a high proportion of portly time-servers on a jolly, but that really wasn't in evidence. Everyone had an agenda, but there was a consensus that there was a real climate problem and we all had to muck in.
When you say "all had to muck in" you mean the governments. Not the people. Because the people seem strangely unwilling to "muck in".
I think it's that phenomenon where the edge case/emotional impact generates a lot of debate, whilst clear cut examples of corruption don't, because they are obvious so little to discuss.
But Johnson has assured us that there's little or no corruption here.
He sounded rather wistful about this, didn't he?
You should get yourself over to LBC mate. Nick Ferrari talking about Meghan Markle. Unlimited material for you there.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.
The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?
They're not.
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.
All MPs should have the same rights to claim expenses. If one MP chooses to rent out a flat they own and rent an alternative in expenses that should be permissible.
Does anyone know what the rule is for housing benefit if you own a home you're letting out, can you then claim for another home?
I doubt it but I don't know. I don't see why MPs should be treated any differently to the rules they have set for others, so if its not allowed for them it shouldn't be for MPs but as I said I don't know.
Most benefits have limits on capital and income, above which you can't claim at all
A former Welsh secretary took a £15,000-a-year job at a diagnostics company a few weeks before it was part of a consortium that secured a £75 million government contract for lateral flow tests.
Alun Cairns is the latest Conservative MP to be revealed as having worked as a paid adviser to a company that was awarded valuable government contracts during the pandemic.
Alongside parliamentary duties, he agreed to work up to 70 hours a year for the BBI Group as a senior adviser “providing strategic advice to the board”.
So he was bought for around a grand before the payoff.
The biggest issue is these MPs are just too cheaply bought off.
At least in Bulgaria the payoffs made the scams worthwhile (say the flats within the residential tower block that would never have otherwise been built sold to various senior people at 10% of the actual value).
Buy a block of basic student like flats. Offer that to MPs to use whilst they're in London. Stick a canteen at the bottom. Job done.
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like this
But make them big, luxury flats owned by the state in a nice part of Westminster. So the state ultimately gets the capital value of the investment - but the MPs get free accommodation in a very agreeable part of town
It would be a decent perk of the job. All MPs would be equal. No one would be forced to live there but if they decide not to, they won’t get any expenses for somewhere else
Simple.
There was a block of flats at the bottom of Waterloo bridge (Stamford street?) they looked at and passed on. Imperial turned it into student accommodation.
Your proposal seems reasonable. I’d make them 2 bedroom flats (no need to be mean). If MPs want to bring their families to London they can rent a hotel like everyone else.
Chatted to various MPs and political journalists at COP. The general view is that sleaze isn't especially cutting through - people can see there's a problem and they do think the Tories are significantly worse, but their expectations were low anyway and tbh they aren't very interested - in particular, it's not coming up on the doorstep in Bexley. On the other hand, almost nobody thinks the government is very competent, and that is a stronger suit for Labour, since people find Keir boringly managerial but they do think he inspires confidence, precisely as a manager. Reeves is seen as doing well as Shadow Chancellor - everyone I talked to likes Dodds personally, but they think Reeves has more of a cutting edge. On the whole, the Labour MPs were moderately confident that progress is being made.
COP is seen by most of the people I talked to (mostly not political types) as a half-full glass, which is better than expected though falling short of what most think is actually needed. I was struck by the genuine enthusiasm and engagement of the delegates, including people from places that I know embarassingly little about (Guinea, Costa Rica, Madagascar...) - I'd expected a high proportion of portly time-servers on a jolly, but that really wasn't in evidence. Everyone had an agenda, but there was a consensus that there was a real climate problem and we all had to muck in.
When you say "all had to muck in" you mean the governments. Not the people. Because the people seem strangely unwilling to "muck in".
Well, nearly every delegate there was part of a government delegation, so yes, they were talking about what "we the governments" need to do.
Not sure you're right about people in general. They aren't very interested in tremendous personal effort if nobody else is bothering, but on the whole seem up for both (a) modest personal effort (sorting recyclable rubbish, turning the heating down a notch) and (b) government action even if if diverts money from something else (green new deal and all that). I'm not pollyannaish about it but one can be too cynical too.
Buy a block of basic student like flats. Offer that to MPs to use whilst they're in London. Stick a canteen at the bottom. Job done.
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like this
But make them big, luxury flats owned by the state in a nice part of Westminster. So the state ultimately gets the capital value of the investment - but the MPs get free accommodation in a very agreeable part of town
It would be a decent perk of the job. All MPs would be equal. No one would be forced to live there but if they decide not to, they won’t get any expenses for somewhere else
Simple.
Apparently many of the recently built luxury flats in London are unsold. Would be pretty easy to sort out.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.
The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?
They're not.
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.
All MPs should have the same rights to claim expenses. If one MP chooses to rent out a flat they own and rent an alternative in expenses that should be permissible.
Your language reveals your mindset. Expenses aren't pay.
No-one is being "penalised" if they already have accommodation near their work, since those who are having it rented with no financial benefit to themselves aren't benefitting financially.
That’s why I put “pay” in inverted commas. It was a simplification.
If I stay with friends while travelling on business I am entitled to claim £150 as a per diem (not that o have ever known anyone claim this!).
Why, because an MP owns a property in London should he/she be obligated to live there rather than having the ability to re t it out like anyone else might choose to do? If they choose to live there they don’t get to claim expenses. If they want to rent somewhere else (may be more convenient for Westminster) they should have the same rights as any MP to claim the cost back
What's striking, comparing the UK to other countries around the world, is how much of a laggard Britain seems to be.
The US economy is now already bigger than it was before the pandemic struck.
France is close to regaining its pre-crisis levels.
Indeed, of the major European countries only Spain remains further from its pre-pandemic GDP than the UK.
The problem for the chancellor is not only does this raise questions about whether Britain's economic measures could have been stronger in helping people get back into work, it all comes ahead of a difficult winter for the economy.
Prices are rising, energy costs are at historic levels and real earnings - wages adjusted for inflation - are stagnating.
In other words, any prospect that strong economic growth could turn into the much-vaunted "feelgood factor" seems to look dim at present.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.
The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?
They're not.
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.
All MPs should have the same rights to claim expenses. If one MP chooses to rent out a flat they own and rent an alternative in expenses that should be permissible.
Your language reveals your mindset. Expenses aren't pay.
No-one is being "penalised" if they already have accommodation near their work, since those who are having it rented with no financial benefit to themselves aren't benefitting financially.
That’s why I put “pay” in inverted commas. It was a simplification.
If I stay with friends while travelling on business I am entitled to claim £150 as a per diem (not that o have ever known anyone claim this!).
Why, because an MP owns a property in London should he/she be obligated to live there rather than having the ability to re t it out like anyone else might choose to do? If they choose to live there they don’t get to claim expenses. If they want to rent somewhere else (may be more convenient for Westminster) they should have the same rights as any MP to claim the cost back
Do you know what the rules are for housing benefit?
Can someone working a minimum wage job and on Universal Credit claim housing benefit if they own a home they're choosing to let to someone else?
If not, why should the rules for housing benefits for MPs be any different to the law they have set for others?
Absolutely huge security risk if we put all MPs and potentially their families in one “student accommodation” block.
However I can imagine they would ensure that the cladding was not highly flammable.
It would be easy enough to buy a few flats here and there in the many developments that have gone up recently and avoid the creation of a new target. Same basic idea.
What's striking, comparing the UK to other countries around the world, is how much of a laggard Britain seems to be.
The US economy is now already bigger than it was before the pandemic struck.
France is close to regaining its pre-crisis levels.
Indeed, of the major European countries only Spain remains further from its pre-pandemic GDP than the UK.
The problem for the chancellor is not only does this raise questions about whether Britain's economic measures could have been stronger in helping people get back into work, it all comes ahead of a difficult winter for the economy.
Prices are rising, energy costs are at historic levels and real earnings - wages adjusted for inflation - are stagnating.
In other words, any prospect that strong economic growth could turn into the much-vaunted "feelgood factor" seems to look dim at present.
Is Ed Conway reading the same ONS report? Has he accidentally opened last year's?
We're within 0.6% of pre-pandemic GDP!!
Edit: immediately above, he clearly is when he says "On the quarterly measure, we are still a fair way off getting back to where we were before the pandemic struck, but on the monthly measure we are now very close." Not sure in what way that supports his point?
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with the prevailing view of some on this thread to the effect that these scandals are nothing of the kind and will blow over with no lasting damage.
Sleaze under Major became a recurring theme just before the Conservatives left office. The 2009 expenses scandal caught out so many Labour MPs that the reputation of the wider party suffered and Labour was kicked out in 2010.
Now we have a third scandal which has initially exposed corruption at the heart of a Tory government and is now going on to expose the grasping nature of Tory MPs in general. Whether it's explicit corruption or just grasping behaviour for private gain is immaterial. It's now being rightly seen as something that infects much of the Tories in general, rather than being something peculiar to the likes of Patterson and Cox. And when an unapologetic Johnson then stands up and denies a problem while lecturing on the very best practice that he threw out of the window it just reinforces other very believeable themes, namely that you can't believe a word that comes out of any minister in this government and also that rules are for others to follow but not them.
There is also plenty of potential for it to run and run. Corruption in the awarding of Covid contracts was overlooked during the first year of Covid but won't be going forward. There'll be a renewed focus on MPs consultancies and outside employment that at best distracting from the day job and at worst pivoting to represent the interests of those with the cheques not those with the votes. It all stinks and there's plenty in the tank for it to become a running theme, as it did under Major.
And this time it's focused on the Conservatives, the party of inside influence and MPs second jobs. "SNP and Labour MPs get drunk on plane" it so trivial that it serves only to reinforce that they've got nothing of substance to distract from all this.
Basically the nasty party of Alan B'stard never really went away, and many who might have believed in 2019 that it was a thing of the past have cottoned on now. Don't underestimate the consequences.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.
The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?
They're not.
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.
All MPs should have the same rights to claim expenses. If one MP chooses to rent out a flat they own and rent an alternative in expenses that should be permissible.
Your language reveals your mindset. Expenses aren't pay.
No-one is being "penalised" if they already have accommodation near their work, since those who are having it rented with no financial benefit to themselves aren't benefitting financially.
That’s why I put “pay” in inverted commas. It was a simplification.
If I stay with friends while travelling on business I am entitled to claim £150 as a per diem (not that o have ever known anyone claim this!).
Why, because an MP owns a property in London should he/she be obligated to live there rather than having the ability to re t it out like anyone else might choose to do? If they choose to live there they don’t get to claim expenses. If they want to rent somewhere else (may be more convenient for Westminster) they should have the same rights as any MP to claim the cost back
It may indeed be better not to prohibit such behaviour and leave them to find out what their constituents think about it.
Forget Cox, the IDS stuff is still boiling my piss.
I am actually tempted to make a complaint to The Met, that's how angry I am at it.
That’s far more serious
The only question for me is the timeline. He was an NED of the company in question 10 years ago. If he was a consultant a significant period of time ok that would probably be ok. If he’s currently a consultant then he deserves to be kicked out of the house
Paterson, IDS, Hancock, and a couple of others should all urgently be answering questions. That is what the media should be primarily focused on, and the longer all this heat and light is focused on Cox, the less apparent chance there is of that happening as naturally following on from the first Paterson issue last week.
What's striking, comparing the UK to other countries around the world, is how much of a laggard Britain seems to be.
The US economy is now already bigger than it was before the pandemic struck.
France is close to regaining its pre-crisis levels.
Indeed, of the major European countries only Spain remains further from its pre-pandemic GDP than the UK.
The problem for the chancellor is not only does this raise questions about whether Britain's economic measures could have been stronger in helping people get back into work, it all comes ahead of a difficult winter for the economy.
Prices are rising, energy costs are at historic levels and real earnings - wages adjusted for inflation - are stagnating.
In other words, any prospect that strong economic growth could turn into the much-vaunted "feelgood factor" seems to look dim at present.
I suspect the hope was that by lagging behind the rest of the world, Britain would enjoy a larger bounce conveniently timed for the election, though the revised figures suggest even that might be pushing it.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.
The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?
They're not.
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.
All MPs should have the same rights to claim expenses. If one MP chooses to rent out a flat they own and rent an alternative in expenses that should be permissible.
Does anyone know what the rule is for housing benefit if you own a home you're letting out, can you then claim for another home?
I doubt it but I don't know. I don't see why MPs should be treated any differently to the rules they have set for others, so if its not allowed for them it shouldn't be for MPs but as I said I don't know.
Buy a block of basic student like flats. Offer that to MPs to use whilst they're in London. Stick a canteen at the bottom. Job done.
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like this
But make them big, luxury flats owned by the state in a nice part of Westminster. So the state ultimately gets the capital value of the investment - but the MPs get free accommodation in a very agreeable part of town
It would be a decent perk of the job. All MPs would be equal. No one would be forced to live there but if they decide not to, they won’t get any expenses for somewhere else
Simple.
There was a block of flats at the bottom of Waterloo bridge (Stamford street?) they looked at and passed on. Imperial turned it into student accommodation.
Your proposal seems reasonable. I’d make them 2 bedroom flats (no need to be mean). If MPs want to bring their families to London they can rent a hotel like everyone else.
Yes, no need to scrimp. The taxpayer will benefit as the state will get the capital gain from the property. Spacious 2 bed flats.
Takes away all the hassle of renting in London. You can move in immediately. Day one of Parliament. Don’t like it, fine, don’t live there but you won’t get money for anywhere else
A nice little perk of the job, but impossible to abuse the system. Sorted
Don’t MEPs have something like this? Official apartments owned by the EU? Or maybe they just sleep in their offices. They are known for their selflessness
I think it's that phenomenon where the edge case/emotional impact generates a lot of debate, whilst clear cut examples of corruption don't, because they are obvious so little to discuss.
But Johnson has assured us that there's little or no corruption here.
Yes, it's incredible that hasn't laid the matter to rest
There seems to be a running theme on this thread where certain people are confusing expenses and pay.
Expenses are provided as needed to enable you to do your work in a business. That's why they're expenses and not pay.
I claim expenses through several business. Sometimes the values of the claims are big - but this is always a reclaim of money I have spent. What I think people are confusing is pay / expense / allowance. The latter is where the employer pays for something directly - MPs staffing and office costs are paid by IPSA as an example.
What's striking, comparing the UK to other countries around the world, is how much of a laggard Britain seems to be.
The US economy is now already bigger than it was before the pandemic struck.
France is close to regaining its pre-crisis levels.
Indeed, of the major European countries only Spain remains further from its pre-pandemic GDP than the UK.
The problem for the chancellor is not only does this raise questions about whether Britain's economic measures could have been stronger in helping people get back into work, it all comes ahead of a difficult winter for the economy.
Prices are rising, energy costs are at historic levels and real earnings - wages adjusted for inflation - are stagnating.
In other words, any prospect that strong economic growth could turn into the much-vaunted "feelgood factor" seems to look dim at present.
helping people get back into work
Do they know that there is full employment and that restrictions both ended sooner and are at a lower level in the UK ?
Now if they want more economic activity then the easiest way to increase it is to stop working from home.
Buy a block of basic student like flats. Offer that to MPs to use whilst they're in London. Stick a canteen at the bottom. Job done.
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like this
But make them big, luxury flats owned by the state in a nice part of Westminster. So the state ultimately gets the capital value of the investment - but the MPs get free accommodation in a very agreeable part of town
It would be a decent perk of the job. All MPs would be equal. No one would be forced to live there but if they decide not to, they won’t get any expenses for somewhere else
Simple.
Wasn't there somewhere like that at one time? Dolphin Square, Court or something like that. Got, after a while, a slightly 'iffy' reputation.
Dolphin Square. But it was never official, just a block used by a lot of MPs because of proximity. And yes it got a seedy rep
Also really ugly
But super convenient. You could walk to Chelsea or the West End.
Only slight downside was that Lupus Street was (and still is I believe) pretty iffy.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.
The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?
They're not.
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.
All MPs should have the same rights to claim expenses. If one MP chooses to rent out a flat they own and rent an alternative in expenses that should be permissible.
Your language reveals your mindset. Expenses aren't pay.
No-one is being "penalised" if they already have accommodation near their work, since those who are having it rented with no financial benefit to themselves aren't benefitting financially.
That’s why I put “pay” in inverted commas. It was a simplification.
If I stay with friends while travelling on business I am entitled to claim £150 as a per diem (not that o have ever known anyone claim this!).
Why, because an MP owns a property in London should he/she be obligated to live there rather than having the ability to rent it out like anyone else might choose to do? If they choose to live there they don’t get to claim expenses. If they want to rent somewhere else (may be more convenient for Westminster) they should have the same rights as any MP to claim the cost back
Ask not what you can do for the taxpayer, but what the taxpayer can do for you.
There seems to be a running theme on this thread where certain people are confusing expenses and pay.
Expenses are provided as needed to enable you to do your work in a business. That's why they're expenses and not pay.
If you live and work in Derbyshire, say, and own a flat in London, are you required to stay there when travelling on business? Or can you stay in a hotel like your colleagues?
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.
The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?
They're not.
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.
All MPs should have the same rights to claim expenses. If one MP chooses to rent out a flat they own and rent an alternative in expenses that should be permissible.
Your language reveals your mindset. Expenses aren't pay.
No-one is being "penalised" if they already have accommodation near their work, since those who are having it rented with no financial benefit to themselves aren't benefitting financially.
That’s why I put “pay” in inverted commas. It was a simplification.
If I stay with friends while travelling on business I am entitled to claim £150 as a per diem (not that o have ever known anyone claim this!).
Why, because an MP owns a property in London should he/she be obligated to live there rather than having the ability to re t it out like anyone else might choose to do? If they choose to live there they don’t get to claim expenses. If they want to rent somewhere else (may be more convenient for Westminster) they should have the same rights as any MP to claim the cost back
Do you know what the rules are for housing benefit?
Can someone working a minimum wage job and on Universal Credit claim housing benefit if they own a home they're choosing to let to someone else?
If not, why should the rules for housing benefits for MPs be any different to the law they have set for others?
Benefits are a contribution by the state to people in need of support. If you have significant capital you are not in need of support.
Expenses are paid to MPs in order to allow them to perform their democratic function. This often requires additional accommodation close to Westminster.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.
The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?
They're not.
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.
All MPs should have the same rights to claim expenses. If one MP chooses to rent out a flat they own and rent an alternative in expenses that should be permissible.
Does anyone know what the rule is for housing benefit if you own a home you're letting out, can you then claim for another home?
I doubt it but I don't know. I don't see why MPs should be treated any differently to the rules they have set for others, so if its not allowed for them it shouldn't be for MPs but as I said I don't know.
Difference between benefits and expenses
Not really. They're both designed to cover costs.
There's a difference between income and either of those. But neither are supposed to be your income.
There seems to be a running theme on this thread where certain people are confusing expenses and pay.
Expenses are provided as needed to enable you to do your work in a business. That's why they're expenses and not pay.
If you live and work in Derbyshire, say, and own a flat in London, are you required to stay there when travelling on business? Or can you stay in a hotel like your colleagues?
Can you stay in the flat overnight at immediate notice ? If so, no you can't expense the hotel.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.
The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?
They're not.
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.
All MPs should have the same rights to claim expenses. If one MP chooses to rent out a flat they own and rent an alternative in expenses that should be permissible.
Your language reveals your mindset. Expenses aren't pay.
No-one is being "penalised" if they already have accommodation near their work, since those who are having it rented with no financial benefit to themselves aren't benefitting financially.
That’s why I put “pay” in inverted commas. It was a simplification.
If I stay with friends while travelling on business I am entitled to claim £150 as a per diem (not that o have ever known anyone claim this!).
Why, because an MP owns a property in London should he/she be obligated to live there rather than having the ability to re t it out like anyone else might choose to do? If they choose to live there they don’t get to claim expenses. If they want to rent somewhere else (may be more convenient for Westminster) they should have the same rights as any MP to claim the cost back
Do you know what the rules are for housing benefit?
Can someone working a minimum wage job and on Universal Credit claim housing benefit if they own a home they're choosing to let to someone else?
If not, why should the rules for housing benefits for MPs be any different to the law they have set for others?
Benefits are a contribution by the state to people in need of support. If you have significant capital you are not in need of support.
Expenses are paid to MPs in order to allow them to perform their democratic function. This often requires additional accommodation close to Westminster.
There is a fundamental difference
And if an MP already has a home in the capital then they don't require additional accommodation any more than somebody who owns their own home needs a benefit. There is absolutely no fundamental difference.
If the MP wants to earn extra money, they can get a job to earn it, not maximise their "expenses" as pay. Just as someone on benefits can.
What's striking, comparing the UK to other countries around the world, is how much of a laggard Britain seems to be.
The US economy is now already bigger than it was before the pandemic struck.
France is close to regaining its pre-crisis levels.
Indeed, of the major European countries only Spain remains further from its pre-pandemic GDP than the UK.
The problem for the chancellor is not only does this raise questions about whether Britain's economic measures could have been stronger in helping people get back into work, it all comes ahead of a difficult winter for the economy.
Prices are rising, energy costs are at historic levels and real earnings - wages adjusted for inflation - are stagnating.
In other words, any prospect that strong economic growth could turn into the much-vaunted "feelgood factor" seems to look dim at present.
I suspect the hope was that by lagging behind the rest of the world, Britain would enjoy a larger bounce conveniently timed for the election, though the revised figures suggest even that might be pushing it.
Could be a problem for Sunak
“ONS say that adds up to annualised GDP growth of 5.1%. That's well down from the OBR's revision up to 6.5% for this year at the Budget only two weeks ago. That means less tax takings for Rishi Sunak, so either spending cuts on his plans... or more tax rises (2)”
Forget Cox, the IDS stuff is still boiling my piss.
I am actually tempted to make a complaint to The Met, that's how angry I am at it.
That’s far more serious
The only question for me is the timeline. He was an NED of the company in question 10 years ago. If he was a consultant a significant period of time ok that would probably be ok. If he’s currently a consultant then he deserves to be kicked out of the house
Paterson, IDS, Hancock, and a couple of others should all urgently be answering questions. That is what the media should be primarily focused on, and the longer all this heat and light is focused on Cox, the less apparent chance there is of that happening as naturally following on from the first Paterson issue last week.
Which is of course the point for Boris.
Cox is an easy person to put all the focus on, has a lot of money and doesn't care for Boris so in Boris's mind he has to go and is the perfect fall guy.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.
The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?
They're not.
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.
All MPs should have the same rights to claim expenses. If one MP chooses to rent out a flat they own and rent an alternative in expenses that should be permissible.
Does anyone know what the rule is for housing benefit if you own a home you're letting out, can you then claim for another home?
I doubt it but I don't know. I don't see why MPs should be treated any differently to the rules they have set for others, so if its not allowed for them it shouldn't be for MPs but as I said I don't know.
Which set of rules they set for others?
The ones who are employed like MPs, or the ones which are set for UC?
What's striking, comparing the UK to other countries around the world, is how much of a laggard Britain seems to be.
The US economy is now already bigger than it was before the pandemic struck.
France is close to regaining its pre-crisis levels.
Indeed, of the major European countries only Spain remains further from its pre-pandemic GDP than the UK.
The problem for the chancellor is not only does this raise questions about whether Britain's economic measures could have been stronger in helping people get back into work, it all comes ahead of a difficult winter for the economy.
Prices are rising, energy costs are at historic levels and real earnings - wages adjusted for inflation - are stagnating.
In other words, any prospect that strong economic growth could turn into the much-vaunted "feelgood factor" seems to look dim at present.
I suspect the hope was that by lagging behind the rest of the world, Britain would enjoy a larger bounce conveniently timed for the election, though the revised figures suggest even that might be pushing it.
Could be a problem for Sunak
“ONS say that adds up to annualised GDP growth of 5.1%. That's well down from the OBR's revision up to 6.5% for this year at the Budget only two weeks ago. That means less tax takings for Rishi Sunak, so either spending cuts on his plans... or more tax rises (2)”
Chatted to various MPs and political journalists at COP. The general view is that sleaze isn't especially cutting through - people can see there's a problem and they do think the Tories are significantly worse, but their expectations were low anyway and tbh they aren't very interested - in particular, it's not coming up on the doorstep in Bexley. On the other hand, almost nobody thinks the government is very competent, and that is a stronger suit for Labour, since people find Keir boringly managerial but they do think he inspires confidence, precisely as a manager. Reeves is seen as doing well as Shadow Chancellor - everyone I talked to likes Dodds personally, but they think Reeves has more of a cutting edge. On the whole, the Labour MPs were moderately confident that progress is being made.
COP is seen by most of the people I talked to (mostly not political types) as a half-full glass, which is better than expected though falling short of what most think is actually needed. I was struck by the genuine enthusiasm and engagement of the delegates, including people from places that I know embarassingly little about (Guinea, Costa Rica, Madagascar...) - I'd expected a high proportion of portly time-servers on a jolly, but that really wasn't in evidence. Everyone had an agenda, but there was a consensus that there was a real climate problem and we all had to muck in.
When you say "all had to muck in" you mean the governments. Not the people. Because the people seem strangely unwilling to "muck in".
Well, nearly every delegate there was part of a government delegation, so yes, they were talking about what "we the governments" need to do.
Not sure you're right about people in general. They aren't very interested in tremendous personal effort if nobody else is bothering, but on the whole seem up for both (a) modest personal effort (sorting recyclable rubbish, turning the heating down a notch) and (b) government action even if if diverts money from something else (green new deal and all that). I'm not pollyannaish about it but one can be too cynical too.
AFAICS older people who follow events are aware of several things:
Firstly that unless China, India, Russia and USA are on board the whole thing (in terms of saving the planet) is a no go.
Secondly that a mixture of elementary maths, political nous and ordinary level scepticism tells them that if the science is correct (which is a real 'if') we are all stuffed. The CO2 level required isn't going to happen in the timescale required.
Thirdly, they notice that Greta Thunberg has spotted this too and that though she is right she doesn't have a plan.
Fourthly older people are aware that the great and good have all been crying wolf for 30 years on the subject of X years to save the planet, and they still are.
And finally they hope the science is wrong and that we in fact have a chance, and that getting rid of fossil fuels etc is good anyway regardless of consequences, because renewables are obviously a better way to run the world.
(Nothing in mainstream media ever reflects this widespread opinion, which nonetheless has the merit of possibly even being true).
The views of older people are not without value. They really have seen it all before.
"As of the end of the third quarter, Italy’s gross domestic product was 1.4 per cent below its end-2019 level. Germany narrowed the gap to 1.1 per cent and France to a mere 0.1 per cent. But in Spain the gap is more of a gulf. Its GDP remains 6.6 per cent below pre-pandemic levels. The economy has only just returned to its size in 2016."
My working theory is they are looking at OECD data, which is dollar denominated. The Euro has appreciated 3.5% in dollar terms since the end of 2019, thus appearing to boost OECD GDP without actually doing so,
What's striking, comparing the UK to other countries around the world, is how much of a laggard Britain seems to be.
The US economy is now already bigger than it was before the pandemic struck.
France is close to regaining its pre-crisis levels.
Indeed, of the major European countries only Spain remains further from its pre-pandemic GDP than the UK.
The problem for the chancellor is not only does this raise questions about whether Britain's economic measures could have been stronger in helping people get back into work, it all comes ahead of a difficult winter for the economy.
Prices are rising, energy costs are at historic levels and real earnings - wages adjusted for inflation - are stagnating.
In other words, any prospect that strong economic growth could turn into the much-vaunted "feelgood factor" seems to look dim at present.
Is Ed Conway reading the same ONS report? Has he accidentally opened last year's?
We're within 0.6% of pre-pandemic GDP!!
Edit: immediately above, he clearly is when he says "On the quarterly measure, we are still a fair way off getting back to where we were before the pandemic struck, but on the monthly measure we are now very close." Not sure in what way that supports his point?
I guess he is focusing on quarterly data for the international comparison as most countries don't publish monthly data (and the UK monthly data are volatile and prone to significant revision). The UK's recovery has been relatively poor but not that different from other countries. We will probably be at or close to pre Covid output levels in Q4, although still some way below the pre Covid trend. The near term growth outlook isn't great, mind you, with energy inflation eating into consumer incomes, manufacturing bottlenecks, rate rises coming and the looming prospect of a damaging trade war with our biggest trading partner.
What's striking, comparing the UK to other countries around the world, is how much of a laggard Britain seems to be.
The US economy is now already bigger than it was before the pandemic struck.
France is close to regaining its pre-crisis levels.
Indeed, of the major European countries only Spain remains further from its pre-pandemic GDP than the UK.
The problem for the chancellor is not only does this raise questions about whether Britain's economic measures could have been stronger in helping people get back into work, it all comes ahead of a difficult winter for the economy.
Prices are rising, energy costs are at historic levels and real earnings - wages adjusted for inflation - are stagnating.
In other words, any prospect that strong economic growth could turn into the much-vaunted "feelgood factor" seems to look dim at present.
Is Ed Conway reading the same ONS report? Has he accidentally opened last year's?
We're within 0.6% of pre-pandemic GDP!!
Edit: immediately above, he clearly is when he says "On the quarterly measure, we are still a fair way off getting back to where we were before the pandemic struck, but on the monthly measure we are now very close." Not sure in what way that supports his point?
The premise is a bit silly when you consider the most up to date data shows we're at -0.6% vs the pre pandemic peak. They're grasping for a negative story/narrative but it doesn't really exist.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.
The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?
They're not.
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.
All MPs should have the same rights to claim expenses. If one MP chooses to rent out a flat they own and rent an alternative in expenses that should be permissible.
Does anyone know what the rule is for housing benefit if you own a home you're letting out, can you then claim for another home?
I doubt it but I don't know. I don't see why MPs should be treated any differently to the rules they have set for others, so if its not allowed for them it shouldn't be for MPs but as I said I don't know.
Difference between benefits and expenses
Not really. They're both designed to cover costs.
There's a difference between income and either of those. But neither are supposed to be your income.
And in the case of cox it’s not his income.
He’s renting a flat and claiming the cost on expenses
Buy a block of basic student like flats. Offer that to MPs to use whilst they're in London. Stick a canteen at the bottom. Job done.
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like this
But make them big, luxury flats owned by the state in a nice part of Westminster. So the state ultimately gets the capital value of the investment - but the MPs get free accommodation in a very agreeable part of town
It would be a decent perk of the job. All MPs would be equal. No one would be forced to live there but if they decide not to, they won’t get any expenses for somewhere else
Simple.
There was a block of flats at the bottom of Waterloo bridge (Stamford street?) they looked at and passed on. Imperial turned it into student accommodation.
Your proposal seems reasonable. I’d make them 2 bedroom flats (no need to be mean). If MPs want to bring their families to London they can rent a hotel like everyone else.
Yes, no need to scrimp. The taxpayer will benefit as the state will get the capital gain from the property. Spacious 2 bed flats.
Takes away all the hassle of renting in London. You can move in immediately. Day one of Parliament. Don’t like it, fine, don’t live there but you won’t get money for anywhere else
A nice little perk of the job, but impossible to abuse the system. Sorted
Don’t MEPs have something like this? Official apartments owned by the EU? Or maybe they just sleep in their offices. They are known for their selflessness
One problem with this is that you are effectively removing the choice for MPs to base their families in London, where they spend most of their time whilst Parliament is sitting.
"As of the end of the third quarter, Italy’s gross domestic product was 1.4 per cent below its end-2019 level. Germany narrowed the gap to 1.1 per cent and France to a mere 0.1 per cent. But in Spain the gap is more of a gulf. Its GDP remains 6.6 per cent below pre-pandemic levels. The economy has only just returned to its size in 2016."
My working theory is they are looking at OECD data, which is dollar denominated. The Euro has appreciated 3.5% in dollar terms since the end of 2019, thus appearing to boost OECD GDP without actually doing so,
I think saying who is behind and ahead is close to pointless until we are 3 years down the road from the end of restrictions. Around the world.
We are still in the painful period of supply chains waking up again. This is causing all kinds of problems, around the world, including labour and material shortages.
Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced
Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky
Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.
Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
No-one should be allowed to do that.
Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.
Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?
And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?
I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
What on earth are you on about?
MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.
MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.
The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?
They're not.
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.
All MPs should have the same rights to claim expenses. If one MP chooses to rent out a flat they own and rent an alternative in expenses that should be permissible.
Your language reveals your mindset. Expenses aren't pay.
No-one is being "penalised" if they already have accommodation near their work, since those who are having it rented with no financial benefit to themselves aren't benefitting financially.
That’s why I put “pay” in inverted commas. It was a simplification.
If I stay with friends while travelling on business I am entitled to claim £150 as a per diem (not that o have ever known anyone claim this!).
Why, because an MP owns a property in London should he/she be obligated to live there rather than having the ability to re t it out like anyone else might choose to do? If they choose to live there they don’t get to claim expenses. If they want to rent somewhere else (may be more convenient for Westminster) they should have the same rights as any MP to claim the cost back
Do you know what the rules are for housing benefit?
Can someone working a minimum wage job and on Universal Credit claim housing benefit if they own a home they're choosing to let to someone else?
If not, why should the rules for housing benefits for MPs be any different to the law they have set for others?
Benefits are a contribution by the state to people in need of support. If you have significant capital you are not in need of support.
Expenses are paid to MPs in order to allow them to perform their democratic function. This often requires additional accommodation close to Westminster.
There is a fundamental difference
And if an MP already has a home in the capital then they don't require additional accommodation any more than somebody who owns their own home needs a benefit. There is absolutely no fundamental difference.
If the MP wants to earn extra money, they can get a job to earn it, not maximise their "expenses" as pay. Just as someone on benefits can.
But if he rents out the house then he doesn’t have access to it
Comments
MPs were flipping their addresses around to direct expenses towards a series of houses one after the other. Or redesignating main residence to London to access a bigger mortgage than could exist in the constituency which could be put through expenses to get more cash. Then, because 'reasonable maintenance' was covered, MPs were doing house renovations with the expenses.
Then because addresses were redacted "for security reasons", no one was able to detect the expenses fraud until somebody stole the data from Parliament, and sold it to the Telegraph.
Margaret Moran MP even flipped her address to her boyfriend's house on the coast (in addition to her London and Constituency homes), then claimed £22,500 for dry rot treatment on it days later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Moran#Other_expense_claims
Otherwise the MP gets the upside at zero cost
ETA: More likely it is just variation to avoid repeating the same word so often that it sounds silly.
1) There is cash for political influence - anything between brown envelopes and the subtleties of the old boy network
2) There is second jobs - anything from Labour chappies doing a shift at boilermaking to QCs in agreeable bits of the old empire.
3) There is the general expenses/property on the tax payer/owning rental property and renting another at our expense/claims for £1 for milk.
The other parties will want to keep it to (1) if they can. The government will want either the whole thing to go away or 'conflate' (word of the week) all three so that all parties are equally seen as sub optimal.
IMHO a QC making millions in whatever lawful way is only a matter for his local party and his electors.
But the same person claiming a few quid for a doughnut, or doing something that looks like (lawfully) maximising property income via the expenses system may well find that it is those things that people find less acceptable. And I suspect this will be a cross party problem.
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1458469973047848966?s=20
Just think of the likely state of the any public areas!
(I'll give you that the SNP are not much in on this particular trough as there were only 6 of them in Westminster when the bovine excrement hit the rotatory cooling device on the old system).
Now you might be able to find Labour MPs who can lecture in Marxist gender studies or advise on human rights or trade union law, I doubt you can find many who could change a lightbulb let alone do a shift at boilermaking
The only way this story goes away is if they have run out of new things to report. We are a long way off that point so the story rumbles along. I expect Ben Bradley to feel the heat at some point soon - he cannot seriously claim to be working a 60 hour week running Notts CC and East Midlands Councils forum thingy AND functioning as an MP on top.
I don't think that would be legal.
And so, why is it unacceptable for them to work hours 48-60 (say) on job 2, and how can you prevent them?
IMO the whole "part time MPs working part time" attack line, whilst they actually doing more than 40 hours a week on their MP work, has no bite whatsoever.
All MPs should have the same rights to claim expenses. If one MP chooses to rent out a flat they own and rent an alternative in expenses that should be permissible.
I am actually tempted to make a complaint to The Met, that's how angry I am at it.
The practice was in any case most common in the 19th century rather than the 20th century, by the Blair era the Commons sittings were mainly in the day
But make them big, luxury flats owned by the state in a nice part of Westminster. So the state ultimately gets the capital value of the investment - but the MPs get free accommodation in a very agreeable part of town
It would be a decent perk of the job. All MPs would be equal. No one would be forced to live there but if they decide not to, they won’t get any expenses for somewhere else
Simple.
No-one is being "penalised" if they already have accommodation near their work, since those who are having it rented with no financial benefit to themselves aren't benefitting financially.
If the arrangement is strictly commercial, there isn't a problem
The Principality Stadium has been branded "the world's biggest pub" as the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) faces calls to address fans' behaviour.
Saturday's match between Wales and South Africa was marred by a supporter who ran on to the pitch and disrupted an attempt from the home side to score a try, prompting him to receive a lifetime ban at the stadium.
During the previous weekend's game against New Zealand, serial pitch invader Daniel Jarvis joined the All Blacks' anthem line-up before being thrown out of the venue.
Off-field concerns are nothing new for the 74,500-capacity arena in Cardiff, where excessive drinking has led to a disabled supporter being abused and an increase in what has been described as "people continually behaving unpleasantly, aggressively and rudely" in recent years.
Now with two high-profile pitch invasions in the space of a week, bosses at the Principality Stadium and WRU are being urged to take action.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/59208662
https://twitter.com/giantpoppywatch/status/1458702614598766596?s=21
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anxious-tories-can-smell-decay-in-the-air-slgtjjbvk
As was noted yesterday, BoZo has lost the dressing room...
However I can imagine they would ensure that the cladding was not highly flammable.
COP is seen by most of the people I talked to (mostly not political types) as a half-full glass, which is better than expected though falling short of what most think is actually needed. I was struck by the genuine enthusiasm and engagement of the delegates, including people from places that I know embarassingly little about (Guinea, Costa Rica, Madagascar...) - I'd expected a high proportion of portly time-servers on a jolly, but that really wasn't in evidence. Everyone had an agenda, but there was a consensus that there was a real climate problem and we all had to muck in.
Also really ugly
This is such helpful coverage.
It diverts attention from the really egregious actions of buying influence, access and contracts. It widens the scandal to one that includes MPs from all parties, not just the Tories. And for all that people will be riled up for a while it's really politics of envy stuff which has the potential to make the opposition look like a bunch of puritanical killjoys.
I on the other hand, regard the social improvements, including public ownership of the 'commanding heights of the economy' after WWII as a major step forward.
I doubt it but I don't know. I don't see why MPs should be treated any differently to the rules they have set for others, so if its not allowed for them it shouldn't be for MPs but as I said I don't know.
Alun Cairns is the latest Conservative MP to be revealed as having worked as a paid adviser to a company that was awarded valuable government contracts during the pandemic.
Alongside parliamentary duties, he agreed to work up to 70 hours a year for the BBI Group as a senior adviser “providing strategic advice to the board”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ex-minister-alun-cairns-took-job-at-covid-firm-weeks-before-75m-contract-sprdbnksl
We have had double digit house price inflation for decades.
How many MPs were personally, directly benefiting from the same?
It's an interesting one - even buying a property can be a conflict of interest.
And even those who weren't directly thinking "If I stop more houses being built, I get richer"... how many wafted along - "Things are great. The Whips like me. The wife is happy. The house has gone up in value. All good here."...
Only slight downside was that Lupus Street was (and still is I believe) pretty iffy.
The only question for me is the timeline. He was an NED of the company in question 10 years ago. If he was a consultant a significant period of time ok that would probably be ok. If he’s currently a consultant then he deserves to be kicked out of the house
At least in Bulgaria the payoffs made the scams worthwhile (say the flats within the residential tower block that would never have otherwise been built sold to various senior people at 10% of the actual value).
Your proposal seems reasonable. I’d make them 2 bedroom flats (no need to be mean). If MPs want to bring their families to London they can rent a hotel like everyone else.
Not sure you're right about people in general. They aren't very interested in tremendous personal effort if nobody else is bothering, but on the whole seem up for both (a) modest personal effort (sorting recyclable rubbish, turning the heating down a notch) and (b) government action even if if diverts money from something else (green new deal and all that). I'm not pollyannaish about it but one can be too cynical too.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/26/ghost-towers-half-of-new-build-luxury-london-flats-fail-to-sell
If I stay with friends while travelling on business I am entitled to claim £150 as a per diem (not that o have ever known anyone claim this!).
Why, because an MP owns a property in London should he/she be obligated to live there rather than having the ability to re t it out like anyone else might choose to do? If they choose to live there they don’t get to claim expenses. If they want to rent somewhere else (may be more convenient for Westminster) they should have the same rights as any MP to claim the cost back
Expenses are provided as needed to enable you to do your work in a business. That's why they're expenses and not pay.
What's striking, comparing the UK to other countries around the world, is how much of a laggard Britain seems to be.
The US economy is now already bigger than it was before the pandemic struck.
France is close to regaining its pre-crisis levels.
Indeed, of the major European countries only Spain remains further from its pre-pandemic GDP than the UK.
The problem for the chancellor is not only does this raise questions about whether Britain's economic measures could have been stronger in helping people get back into work, it all comes ahead of a difficult winter for the economy.
Prices are rising, energy costs are at historic levels and real earnings - wages adjusted for inflation - are stagnating.
In other words, any prospect that strong economic growth could turn into the much-vaunted "feelgood factor" seems to look dim at present.
Can someone working a minimum wage job and on Universal Credit claim housing benefit if they own a home they're choosing to let to someone else?
If not, why should the rules for housing benefits for MPs be any different to the law they have set for others?
We're within 0.6% of pre-pandemic GDP!!
Edit: immediately above, he clearly is when he says "On the quarterly measure, we are still a fair way off getting back to where we were before the pandemic struck, but on the monthly measure we are now very close." Not sure in what way that supports his point?
Sleaze under Major became a recurring theme just before the Conservatives left office. The 2009 expenses scandal caught out so many Labour MPs that the reputation of the wider party suffered and Labour was kicked out in 2010.
Now we have a third scandal which has initially exposed corruption at the heart of a Tory government and is now going on to expose the grasping nature of Tory MPs in general. Whether it's explicit corruption or just grasping behaviour for private gain is immaterial. It's now being rightly seen as something that infects much of the Tories in general, rather than being something peculiar to the likes of Patterson and Cox. And when an unapologetic Johnson then stands up and denies a problem while lecturing on the very best practice that he threw out of the window it just reinforces other very believeable themes, namely that you can't believe a word that comes out of any minister in this government and also that rules are for others to follow but not them.
There is also plenty of potential for it to run and run. Corruption in the awarding of Covid contracts was overlooked during the first year of Covid but won't be going forward. There'll be a renewed focus on MPs consultancies and outside employment that at best distracting from the day job and at worst pivoting to represent the interests of those with the cheques not those with the votes. It all stinks and there's plenty in the tank for it to become a running theme, as it did under Major.
And this time it's focused on the Conservatives, the party of inside influence and MPs second jobs. "SNP and Labour MPs get drunk on plane" it so trivial that it serves only to reinforce that they've got nothing of substance to distract from all this.
Basically the nasty party of Alan B'stard never really went away, and many who might have believed in 2019 that it was a thing of the past have cottoned on now. Don't underestimate the consequences.
effectively sub-letting those flats is utterly wrong when we're paying the bill.
Takes away all the hassle of renting in London. You can move in immediately. Day one of Parliament. Don’t like it, fine, don’t live there but you won’t get money for anywhere else
A nice little perk of the job, but impossible to abuse the system. Sorted
Don’t MEPs have something like this? Official apartments owned by the EU? Or maybe they just sleep in their offices. They are known for their selflessness
Do they know that there is full employment and that restrictions both ended sooner and are at a lower level in the UK ?
Now if they want more economic activity then the easiest way to increase it is to stop working from home.
Expenses are paid to MPs in order to allow them to perform their democratic function. This often requires additional accommodation close to Westminster.
There is a fundamental difference
There's a difference between income and either of those. But neither are supposed to be your income.
If the MP wants to earn extra money, they can get a job to earn it, not maximise their "expenses" as pay. Just as someone on benefits can.
“ONS say that adds up to annualised GDP growth of 5.1%. That's well down from the OBR's revision up to 6.5% for this year at the Budget only two weeks ago. That means less tax takings for Rishi Sunak, so either spending cuts on his plans... or more tax rises (2)”
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1458696216141832193?s=21
However post-pandemic growth is going to be super volatile. Could go either way, yet
Cox is an easy person to put all the focus on, has a lot of money and doesn't care for Boris so in Boris's mind he has to go and is the perfect fall guy.
The ones who are employed like MPs, or the ones which are set for UC?
I'd say that the first has to apply.
Firstly that unless China, India, Russia and USA are on board the whole thing (in terms of saving the planet) is a no go.
Secondly that a mixture of elementary maths, political nous and ordinary level scepticism tells them that if the science is correct (which is a real 'if') we are all stuffed. The CO2 level required isn't going to happen in the timescale required.
Thirdly, they notice that Greta Thunberg has spotted this too and that though she is right she doesn't have a plan.
Fourthly older people are aware that the great and good have all been crying wolf for 30 years on the subject of X years to save the planet, and they still are.
And finally they hope the science is wrong and that we in fact have a chance, and that getting rid of fossil fuels etc is good anyway regardless of consequences, because renewables are obviously a better way to run the world.
(Nothing in mainstream media ever reflects this widespread opinion, which nonetheless has the merit of possibly even being true).
The views of older people are not without value. They really have seen it all before.
Three days ago, the FT noted that:
"As of the end of the third quarter, Italy’s gross domestic product was 1.4 per cent below its end-2019 level. Germany narrowed the gap to 1.1 per cent and France to a mere 0.1 per cent. But in Spain the gap is more of a gulf. Its GDP remains 6.6 per cent below pre-pandemic levels. The economy has only just returned to its size in 2016."
https://www.ft.com/content/2af9039d-b2e1-4392-a5d3-cfb559f550f0
So why does everyone think the UK is behind?
My working theory is they are looking at OECD data, which is dollar denominated. The Euro has appreciated 3.5% in dollar terms since the end of 2019, thus appearing to boost OECD GDP without actually doing so,
The near term growth outlook isn't great, mind you, with energy inflation eating into consumer incomes, manufacturing bottlenecks, rate rises coming and the looming prospect of a damaging trade war with our biggest trading partner.
He’s renting a flat and claiming the cost on expenses
Would fall foul of the Equalities Act, for one.
We are still in the painful period of supply chains waking up again. This is causing all kinds of problems, around the world, including labour and material shortages.