Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This morning’s YouGov should ease some of the Tory jitters

13»

Comments

  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Socrates said:

    tim said:

    @Charles

    Housing costs: just pay the cost of a reasonable hotel in central London ever night they need to be there.

    If you want to get rid of any MP's with a family thats a very good idea.

    Surely an MP's family lives in one place or the other?

    I think there are arguments against the hotel-method, because MPs would likely need a 'home' study in their London living arrangements. The sensible thing is for parliament simply to buy out an entire block of flats that can be used by MPs.
    That's probably what I would end up doing. Of course the Mail would complain about the cost.
  • Options
    AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited May 2013

    That will be fun. Unions running a bank.

    'slow progress on integrating the Britannia building society which it took over three years ago.'

    IT disaster?

    'Hayes said the unions are likely to call for a public inquiry into what went wrong at Co-op Bank'

    It's up to the shareholders to hold the bank and it's directors to account. No need for a publicly funded enquiry.

    Thinking further, that might be the problem. Does the Co Op Bank have shareholders as such, capable of influence over the board and executives?
    What might be the problem you ask?

    Perhaps this extract from the Co-op Banking Group's 2012 Annual Report might help answer part of that question:

    A note on political donations

    During the year, an annual donation of £563,000 (2011: £533,000) was made to The Co-operative Party. In addition, £242,000 (2011: £234,000) was paid in grants to Co-operative Party Councils. The Group Board also authorised a donation of £10,000 as a contribution to The Co-operative Party’s campaigning activities in advance of the May 2012 Greater London Authority and London Mayoral elections. In addition, a number of donations totalling £28,500 (2011: £28,500) (including in-kind contributions) were made to The Co-operative Party to support a range of activity including party conferences. The Co-operative Party reports donations to the Electoral Commission in accordance with its reporting obligations as a registered political party under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

    The Group Board also approved the donation of £50,000 through the Labour Party to support the Shadow Chancellor’s office.

    Furthermore, during the course of 2012, a number of donations were made to support various Labour Party events, including at a national and local level with a value of no more than £11,550. With 2012 designated by the United Nations as the International Year of Co-operatives, the Group has also supported a number of Parliamentarians who have undertaken study tours about the global co-operative sector, and these donations have been recorded in relevant Registers of Financial Interests.


    Time for Osborne to try an EU style bailin by the bank's depositors?

    *titters*
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,628
    New Thread
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,113
    Socrates said:

    tim said:

    @Charles

    Housing costs: just pay the cost of a reasonable hotel in central London ever night they need to be there.

    If you want to get rid of any MP's with a family thats a very good idea.

    Surely an MP's family lives in one place or the other?

    I think there are arguments against the hotel-method, because MPs would likely need a 'home' study in their London living arrangements. The sensible thing is for parliament simply to buy out an entire block of flats that can be used by MPs.
    When the expense scandal first broke, I suggested a different solution on a blog (reproduced here with minor alterations):
    Being an MP is an unusual job; you have twin responsibilities in London and in a constituency. Add in other requirements, like stability for young families, and you get a set of dramatically conflicting requirements. It is not unique for people to be required to work in two far-flung locales, but it is unusual.

    The state buys a nice four-bedroom family home in each constituency outside London. The MP can choose to live there, in which case they pay rent, or in their own house, in which case the state rents out the unused state-owned property.

    The state also buys properties within Central London for out-of-London MPs. If an MP uses this, then they pay full market rent on it. Alternatively, they can rent a Central London flat or house on the open market. Rents will be set by price according to the local rental market on a yearly basis.

    They do not get any help with paying the rent from the state; no rebates or expenses.

    However if they rent both a constituency and a London state-owned home, then they only pay for each when they are in residence. This means that they can decamp to their constituencies for recess or constituency work at no cost; a reasonable compromise. if the family stays in the constituency home whilst the MP lives in London, they pay rent on both.

    MPs will be able to chop-and-change whether they live in the state-owned or private homes, but only if their circumstances change, e.g. marriage, divorce, children attending new school, etc. All such changes should be approved by a committee.
    Simple. ;-)
This discussion has been closed.