The Mail continues with it attacks on Cox – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
That was a huge cause of the expenses scandal last time. Can NEVER be allowed to happen again.Gallowgate said:
I’m open in principle to mortgage interest perhaps being an allowable expense but only during times Parliament is in session.Charles said:
I believe they do now. But MPs used to be able to claim mortgages on expenses. Which was a bad system.Philip_Thompson said:
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.Theuniondivvie said:
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.Philip_Thompson said: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.
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?
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
2 -
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!DavidL said:
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?Leon said:
Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.IanB2 said:
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.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 similarly1 -
No bad thing at all.another_richard said:
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.rottenborough said: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)2 -
That’s a terrible idea, unless the state owns the property at the end.Gallowgate said:
I’m open in principle to mortgage interest perhaps being an allowable expense but only during times Parliament is in session.Charles said:
I believe they do now. But MPs used to be able to claim mortgages on expenses. Which was a bad system.Philip_Thompson said:
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.Theuniondivvie said:
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.Philip_Thompson said: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.
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?
Otherwise the MP gets the upside at zero cost0 -
Other way round, perhaps? Surely voters will understand "Glasgow" more easily than "COP26".Charles said:
The BBC this morning started referring to “the UN climate change conference in Glasgow” rather than “COP26”.TimS said:Sad really that the news this morning isn’t all about COP26, and England’s loss in the T20.
The Cox gambit has paid off well for the government. I hope IDS, Bradley, Johnson and Co will pay him well for his diversionary services.
Perhaps they thought Boris might too much credit otherwise?
ETA: More likely it is just variation to avoid repeating the same word so often that it sounds silly.1 -
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.3 -
What an absolute crock!HYUFD said:
Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.Philip_Thompson said: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.
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
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html0 -
But Johnson has assured us that there's little or no corruption here.rkrkrk said:
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.Nigelb said:Why are we still obsessing about Cox ?
0 -
0
-
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?)DavidL said:
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?Leon said:
Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.IanB2 said:
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.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 similarly0 -
They are representatives of the voters primarily, not legislatorsGallowgate said:
Ministers having too much to do under our system is a completely different debate to whether MPs have enough to do.Philip_Thompson said:
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.Gallowgate said:
Nope being a minister is a promotion not a second job - I refuse to engage with your convenient fiction.Philip_Thompson said:
Being an MP is a Part Time job. Every single Minister in Parliament has a Second Job - being a Minister.Gallowgate said:
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.HYUFD said:
In Cox's case there is no gravy train.Gallowgate said:
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.HYUFD said:
Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.Philip_Thompson said: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.
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
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
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
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?
They’re supposed to be full-time legislators ffs.0 -
That’s good enough for me.OldKingCole said:
But Johnson has assured us that there's little or no corruption here.rkrkrk said:
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.Nigelb said:Why are we still obsessing about Cox ?
2 -
why doesn't Parliament procure a travelodge somewhere?IanB2 said:
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?)DavidL said:
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?Leon said:
Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.IanB2 said:
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.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Just think of the likely state of the any public areas!0 -
Why do you say "Tory MP", when it is across parties. I've just pointed our Chris Bryant as one of the beneficiaries.Theuniondivvie said:
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!DavidL said:
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?Leon said:
Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.IanB2 said:
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.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
(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).
0 -
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.9
-
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.algarkirk said: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.
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 boilermaking0 -
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.CarlottaVance said:Interestingly the BBC didn't name the Labour MP "for legal reasons" who got drunk on the flight to Gibraltar while naming the SNP MPs- like the Sun:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16697509/mps-drinking-armistice-day-flight-lack-of-respect/
While the Telegraph treats us to a photo of her, as well as her name:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/11/10/labour-snp-mps-criticised-drinking-heavily-official-flight-gibraltar/
Wonder what the "legal reasons" could be?0 -
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.2 -
The issue there is should MPs be expected to work 70 or 80 hour weeks as part of their MP job role?Gallowgate said:
Ministers having too much to do under our system is a completely different debate to whether MPs have enough to do.Philip_Thompson said:
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.Gallowgate said:
Nope being a minister is a promotion not a second job - I refuse to engage with your convenient fiction.Philip_Thompson said:
Being an MP is a Part Time job. Every single Minister in Parliament has a Second Job - being a Minister.Gallowgate said:
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.HYUFD said:
In Cox's case there is no gravy train.Gallowgate said:
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.HYUFD said:
Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.Philip_Thompson said: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.
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
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
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
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?
They’re supposed to be full-time legislators ffs.
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.0 -
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not.Charles said:
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?Gallowgate said:
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.Charles said:
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
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.
0 -
Human nature, oh you said Cox not cocks.Nigelb said:Why are we still obsessing about Cox ?
1 -
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.4 -
Was it? We ended it more prosperous than we had ever been and won 2 world wars.Jonathan said:
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.HYUFD said:
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 beganGallowgate said:
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.HYUFD said:
In Cox's case there is no gravy train.Gallowgate said:
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.HYUFD said:
Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.Philip_Thompson said: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.
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
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
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
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 day0 -
Funny and not entirely unfair. I can change a lightbulb, but that's about as far as it goes...HYUFD said:
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.algarkirk said: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.
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 boilermaking3 -
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like thisJonathan said: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.
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.1 -
Your language reveals your mindset. Expenses aren't pay.Charles said:
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not.Charles said:
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?Gallowgate said:
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.Charles said:
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
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.
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.1 -
Do it!TheScreamingEagles said: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.0 -
If MPs are allowed to expense rent for a London abode, then taxpayers cash is subsidising the MP's landlord.IanB2 said:
No, public money shouldn't be subsidising house purchase at allGallowgate said:
I’m open in principle to mortgage interest perhaps being an allowable expense but only during times Parliament is in session.Charles said:
I believe they do now. But MPs used to be able to claim mortgages on expenses. Which was a bad system.Philip_Thompson said:
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.Theuniondivvie said:
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.Philip_Thompson said: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.
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?1 -
You'd certainly need rules to make sure MPs don't rent from friends/party associates/family members.Pulpstar said:
If the MPs are allowed to expense rent for a London abode, then taxpayers cash is subsidising their landlord.IanB2 said:
No, public money shouldn't be subsidising house purchase at allGallowgate said:
I’m open in principle to mortgage interest perhaps being an allowable expense but only during times Parliament is in session.Charles said:
I believe they do now. But MPs used to be able to claim mortgages on expenses. Which was a bad system.Philip_Thompson said:
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.Theuniondivvie said:
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.Philip_Thompson said: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.
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?
If the arrangement is strictly commercial, there isn't a problem0 -
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.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/592086620 -
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.MattW said:
That was a huge cause of the expenses scandal last time. Can NEVER be allowed to happen again.Gallowgate said:
I’m open in principle to mortgage interest perhaps being an allowable expense but only during times Parliament is in session.Charles said:
I believe they do now. But MPs used to be able to claim mortgages on expenses. Which was a bad system.Philip_Thompson said:
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.Theuniondivvie said:
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.Philip_Thompson said: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.
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?
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_claims0 -
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.MattW said:
Why do you say "Tory MP", when it is across parties. I've just pointed our Chris Bryant as one of the beneficiaries.Theuniondivvie said:
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!DavidL said:
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?Leon said:
Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.IanB2 said:
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.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
(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).0 -
Kick the Really Lazy Corps out of Regent's Park Barracks (why the fuck do they need to be in central London anyway) and put them in there.Jonathan said: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.
0 -
Mr. kjh, that's what you claim didn't happen but if you consult this briefing which I forgot to mention I think you'll find that changes things.1
-
What a wonderful target for terrorists / murderers / lunatics.Leon said:
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like thisJonathan said: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.
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.0 -
Wasn't there somewhere like that at one time? Dolphin Square, Court or something like that. Got, after a while, a slightly 'iffy' reputation.Leon said:
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like thisJonathan said: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.
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.0 -
Anyway, to the important issue of the day.
https://twitter.com/giantpoppywatch/status/1458702614598766596?s=210 -
It could be a gated community with security.RochdalePioneers said:
What a wonderful target for terrorists / murderers / lunatics.Leon said:
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like thisJonathan said: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.
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.0 -
Morning. This from @iainmartin1 captures a feeling in the air that this scandal isn't like all the other scandals the PM has basically just romped through regardless
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...1 -
Win win.RochdalePioneers said:
What a wonderful target for terrorists / murderers / lunatics.Leon said:
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like thisJonathan said: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.
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.1 -
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.2 -
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.RochdalePioneers said:
What a wonderful target for terrorists / murderers / lunatics.Leon said:
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like thisJonathan said: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.
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.0 -
Except they’d all be much more secure in one building monitored and guarded by the stateRochdalePioneers said:
What a wonderful target for terrorists / murderers / lunatics.Leon said:
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like thisJonathan said: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.
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.1 -
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.2 -
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 repOldKingCole said:
Wasn't there somewhere like that at one time? Dolphin Square, Court or something like that. Got, after a while, a slightly 'iffy' reputation.Leon said:
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like thisJonathan said: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.
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.
Also really ugly0 -
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.1 -
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'.HYUFD said:
Was it? We ended it more prosperous than we had ever been and won 2 world wars.Jonathan said:
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.HYUFD said:
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 beganGallowgate said:
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.HYUFD said:
In Cox's case there is no gravy train.Gallowgate said:
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.HYUFD said:
Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.Philip_Thompson said: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.
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
https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
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
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
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.0 -
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?Charles said:
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not.Charles said:
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?Gallowgate said:
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.Charles said:
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
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 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.0 -
He sounded rather wistful about this, didn't he?OldKingCole said:
But Johnson has assured us that there's little or no corruption here.rkrkrk said:
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.Nigelb said:Why are we still obsessing about Cox ?
0 -
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”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ex-minister-alun-cairns-took-job-at-covid-firm-weeks-before-75m-contract-sprdbnksl0 -
Dan Jarvis??!!!?TheScreamingEagles said: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.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/592086620 -
Which brings us back to conflicts of interest.DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.MattW said:
That was a huge cause of the expenses scandal last time. Can NEVER be allowed to happen again.Gallowgate said:
I’m open in principle to mortgage interest perhaps being an allowable expense but only during times Parliament is in session.Charles said:
I believe they do now. But MPs used to be able to claim mortgages on expenses. Which was a bad system.Philip_Thompson said:
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.Theuniondivvie said:
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.Philip_Thompson said: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.
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?
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
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."...
4 -
So he was bought for around a grand before the payoff.TheScreamingEagles said: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”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ex-minister-alun-cairns-took-job-at-covid-firm-weeks-before-75m-contract-sprdbnksl0 -
But super convenient. You could walk to Chelsea or the West End.Leon said:
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 repOldKingCole said:
Wasn't there somewhere like that at one time? Dolphin Square, Court or something like that. Got, after a while, a slightly 'iffy' reputation.Leon said:
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like thisJonathan said: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.
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.
Also really ugly
Only slight downside was that Lupus Street was (and still is I believe) pretty iffy.0 -
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.Leon said:
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.DavidL said:
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?Leon said:
Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.IanB2 said:
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.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
The expenses are there to help you do the job, not to fund your property investments. That’s it. It’s that basic4 -
That’s far more seriousTheScreamingEagles said: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.
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 house0 -
When you say "all had to muck in" you mean the governments. Not the people. Because the people seem strangely unwilling to "muck in".NickPalmer said: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.1 -
You should get yourself over to LBC mate. Nick Ferrari talking about Meghan Markle. Unlimited material for you there.kinabalu said:
He sounded rather wistful about this, didn't he?OldKingCole said:
But Johnson has assured us that there's little or no corruption here.rkrkrk said:
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.Nigelb said:Why are we still obsessing about Cox ?
1 -
Most benefits have limits on capital and income, above which you can't claim at allPhilip_Thompson said:
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?Charles said:
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not.Charles said:
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?Gallowgate said:
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.Charles said:
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
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 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.1 -
Why is anymore of a risk than putting them in one office block?Gallowgate said: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.0 -
The biggest issue is these MPs are just too cheaply bought off.Pulpstar said:
So he was bought for around a grand before the payoff.TheScreamingEagles said: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”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ex-minister-alun-cairns-took-job-at-covid-firm-weeks-before-75m-contract-sprdbnksl
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).0 -
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.Leon said:
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like thisJonathan said: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.
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.
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.2 -
Another of my puns falls flat.kjh said:
MD I think you will find I didn't post before you.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
I was first, but forgot to post.0 -
Well, nearly every delegate there was part of a government delegation, so yes, they were talking about what "we the governments" need to do.TOPPING said:
When you say "all had to muck in" you mean the governments. Not the people. Because the people seem strangely unwilling to "muck in".NickPalmer said: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.
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.0 -
Apparently many of the recently built luxury flats in London are unsold. Would be pretty easy to sort out.Leon said:
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like thisJonathan said: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.
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/26/ghost-towers-half-of-new-build-luxury-london-flats-fail-to-sell0 -
That’s why I put “pay” in inverted commas. It was a simplification.IanB2 said:
Your language reveals your mindset. Expenses aren't pay.Charles said:
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not.Charles said:
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?Gallowgate said:
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.Charles said:
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
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.
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 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 back0 -
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.2 -
SKY NEWS:
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.0 -
Do you know what the rules are for housing benefit?Charles said:
That’s why I put “pay” in inverted commas. It was a simplification.IanB2 said:
Your language reveals your mindset. Expenses aren't pay.Charles said:
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not.Charles said:
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?Gallowgate said:
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.Charles said:
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
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.
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 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
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?1 -
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.Gallowgate said: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.2 -
Is Ed Conway reading the same ONS report? Has he accidentally opened last year's?IanB2 said:SKY NEWS:
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.
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?1 -
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.
6 -
True, but there's a fundamental difference when those expenses also allow you to fill your own pocket.Pulpstar said: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.
effectively sub-letting those flats is utterly wrong when we're paying the bill.0 -
It may indeed be better not to prohibit such behaviour and leave them to find out what their constituents think about it.Charles said:
That’s why I put “pay” in inverted commas. It was a simplification.IanB2 said:
Your language reveals your mindset. Expenses aren't pay.Charles said:
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not.Charles said:
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?Gallowgate said:
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.Charles said:
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
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.
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 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 back0 -
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.Charles said:
That’s far more seriousTheScreamingEagles said: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.
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 house0 -
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.IanB2 said:SKY NEWS:
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.0 -
Difference between benefits and expensesPhilip_Thompson said:
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?Charles said:
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not.Charles said:
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?Gallowgate said:
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.Charles said:
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
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 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.0 -
Yes, no need to scrimp. The taxpayer will benefit as the state will get the capital gain from the property. Spacious 2 bed flats.Charles said:
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.Leon said:
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like thisJonathan said: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.
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.
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.
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 selflessness0 -
Yes, it's incredible that hasn't laid the matter to restOldKingCole said:
But Johnson has assured us that there's little or no corruption here.rkrkrk said:
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.Nigelb said:Why are we still obsessing about Cox ?
2 -
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.Pulpstar said: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.0 -
helping people get back into workIanB2 said:SKY NEWS:
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.
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.
0 -
Iffy? In what way!? It is the middle of Pimlico!TOPPING said:
But super convenient. You could walk to Chelsea or the West End.Leon said:
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 repOldKingCole said:
Wasn't there somewhere like that at one time? Dolphin Square, Court or something like that. Got, after a while, a slightly 'iffy' reputation.Leon said:
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like thisJonathan said: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.
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.
Also really ugly
Only slight downside was that Lupus Street was (and still is I believe) pretty iffy.1 -
Ask not what you can do for the taxpayer, but what the taxpayer can do for you.Charles said:
That’s why I put “pay” in inverted commas. It was a simplification.IanB2 said:
Your language reveals your mindset. Expenses aren't pay.Charles said:
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not.Charles said:
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?Gallowgate said:
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.Charles said:
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
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.
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 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 back3 -
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?Pulpstar said: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.0 -
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.Philip_Thompson said:
Do you know what the rules are for housing benefit?Charles said:
That’s why I put “pay” in inverted commas. It was a simplification.IanB2 said:
Your language reveals your mindset. Expenses aren't pay.Charles said:
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not.Charles said:
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?Gallowgate said:
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.Charles said:
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
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.
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 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
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?
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 difference0 -
Not really. They're both designed to cover costs.Charles said:
Difference between benefits and expensesPhilip_Thompson said:
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?Charles said:
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not.Charles said:
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?Gallowgate said:
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.Charles said:
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
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 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.
There's a difference between income and either of those. But neither are supposed to be your income.0 -
Can you stay in the flat overnight at immediate notice ? If so, no you can't expense the hotel.Charles said:
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?Pulpstar said: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.0 -
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.Charles said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
Do you know what the rules are for housing benefit?Charles said:
That’s why I put “pay” in inverted commas. It was a simplification.IanB2 said:
Your language reveals your mindset. Expenses aren't pay.Charles said:
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not.Charles said:
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?Gallowgate said:
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.Charles said:
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
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.
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 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
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?
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
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.0 -
Could be a problem for SunakDecrepiterJohnL said:
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.IanB2 said:SKY NEWS:
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.
“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, yet0 -
Which is of course the point for Boris.WhisperingOracle said:
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.Charles said:
That’s far more seriousTheScreamingEagles said: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.
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
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.0 -
Which set of rules they set for others?Philip_Thompson said:
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?Charles said:
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not.Charles said:
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?Gallowgate said:
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.Charles said:
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
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 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.
The ones who are employed like MPs, or the ones which are set for UC?
I'd say that the first has to apply.0 -
Q4 looks pretty strong this year and last year we were in lockdown.Leon said:
Could be a problem for SunakDecrepiterJohnL said:
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.IanB2 said:SKY NEWS:
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.
“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, yet0 -
AFAICS older people who follow events are aware of several things:NickPalmer said:
Well, nearly every delegate there was part of a government delegation, so yes, they were talking about what "we the governments" need to do.TOPPING said:
When you say "all had to muck in" you mean the governments. Not the people. Because the people seem strangely unwilling to "muck in".NickPalmer said: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.
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.
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.
5 -
I'm calling bollocks on this economic reporting.
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,3 -
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.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Is Ed Conway reading the same ONS report? Has he accidentally opened last year's?IanB2 said:SKY NEWS:
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.
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 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.0 -
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.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Is Ed Conway reading the same ONS report? Has he accidentally opened last year's?IanB2 said:SKY NEWS:
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.
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?1 -
And in the case of cox it’s not his income.Philip_Thompson said:
Not really. They're both designed to cover costs.Charles said:
Difference between benefits and expensesPhilip_Thompson said:
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?Charles said:
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not.Charles said:
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?Gallowgate said:
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.Charles said:
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
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 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.
There's a difference between income and either of those. But neither are supposed to be your income.
He’s renting a flat and claiming the cost on expenses0 -
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.Leon said:
Yes, no need to scrimp. The taxpayer will benefit as the state will get the capital gain from the property. Spacious 2 bed flats.Charles said:
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.Leon said:
I know you’re being facetious, but I would actually do something like thisJonathan said: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.
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.
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.
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
Would fall foul of the Equalities Act, for one.0 -
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.TheWhiteRabbit said:I'm calling bollocks on this economic reporting.
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,
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.2 -
But if he rents out the house then he doesn’t have access to itPhilip_Thompson said:
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.Charles said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
Do you know what the rules are for housing benefit?Charles said:
That’s why I put “pay” in inverted commas. It was a simplification.IanB2 said:
Your language reveals your mindset. Expenses aren't pay.Charles said:
I agree. But @Gallowgate is proposing to penalise them for owning a flat in London even if it is not their primary home.Philip_Thompson said:
They're not.Charles said:
But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?Gallowgate said:
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.Charles said:
You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.Gallowgate said:
What on earth are you on about?Charles said:
So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?IanB2 said:
No-one should be allowed to do that.Charles said:
It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
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.
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 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
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?
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
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.0
