Eric Pickles on Question Time last night

[im]

"Tory MPs climb aboard Gravy Train" Shocker....



...I do not believe it!

[HereBeMonsters]

Sheets Tabuer said:

Why not just have an MP hostel nearby, they have needed to travel there for 100s of years you'd have thought they'd have built something by now.

Where they have to bring their own sheets, and label anything they put in the fridge?

[esselte]

im said:

"ALL MPs climb aboard Gravy Train" Shocker....



...I do not believe it!

Just a small correction there..

[V6]

ipitythefool said:

But who determines whether a 2nd home is a worthy expense or not?


Why should the MP for Inverness get the benefit of a 2nd home allowance but the MP for Bromley not so?

So are we saying that after every late-night debate in the Commons, Eric Pickles has to find his way back 37 miles to his house (say 90 mins in a cab), whilst the MP for Powys Gwyneddd just has a 5 min stroll back to his Belgravia flat, paid for by the taxpayer? Hardly fair.

Err, yes. Benefits are there for people who NEED them, they are (or at least should not) be compulsory. Not that any MP should have enough for a flat in Belgravia. There should be a number of houses in central London for MPs that are owned, thereby at least stopping all this public money going into already rich landlord's hands.

[FoolOnTheHill]

Bloke looks like he could with getting off his fat arse and doing a bit of walking anyway.

[Tom74]

esselte said:

ipitythefool said:

But who determines whether a 2nd home is a worthy expense or not?


Why should the MP for Inverness get the benefit of a 2nd home allowance but the MP for Bromley not so?

So are we saying that after every late-night debate in the Commons, Eric Pickles has to find his way back 37 miles to his house (say 90 mins in a cab), whilst the MP for Powys Gwyneddd just has a 5 min stroll back to his Belgravia flat, paid for by the taxpayer? Hardly fair.

37 miles is hardly the other end of the country....what's fairness got to do with it..surely it should be based on logistics...

Put them all in jail, they can meet in the dining hall. It will save time in the long run as thats where thet should end up anyway.

[10 Pence Short]

im said:

"Tory MPs climb aboard Gravy Train" Shocker....



...I do not believe it!

Why do you think the Tories have avoided going for the throat on this issue?

MPs from all parties have been abusing the rules to their full advantage. The problem is the rules, not those who follow them.

[skoff]

Fittster said:

skoff said:

Now I firmly believe that we should pay our MPs well to attract the real talent, and some of them do need second homes.

How much do you think the salary should be to attract real talent?

It should be on a par with company directors of medium to large sized companies. Basically enough to attract those types of people who run successful businesses.

I think currently they earn about £64K, which isn't that much when you consider the average London salary is £48K. I think £150k should be a starting point, with ministers starting at £200k. My figures might be out of date, but you see my point.

I know this might be an unpopular thing, but look at how much responsibility these guys have - I want a safe pair of hands making decisions that affect the whole country.

[Saddle bum]

Fittster said:

skoff said:

Now I firmly believe that we should pay our MPs well to attract the real talent, and some of them do need second homes.

How much do you think the salary should be to attract real talent?

Many moons ago, MP's saleries were aligned to the Principle's grade in the Civil Service. However that was de-coupled and the present free-for-all began and their saleries have all but doubled in real terms.

[Parrot of Doom]

skoff said:

The audience turned on him, and he did himself no favours at all by saying that he would have to get up early to get to work on time if he didn't have the flat! Welcome to the real world Eric...

Now I firmly believe that we should pay our MPs well to attract the real talent, and some of them do need second homes. But they really should set an example to the rest of us by not doing what I think are effectively legal 'fiddles'. It just damages their reputation and our faith in them to run the country (if indeed we had any in the first place).

Hang on - what he said was quite right. 37 miles is a fair commute, especially when you may finish well past 10pm and have to be up 7 hours later. By the government's own working time directive such hours are illegal. I wonder how many in the audience worked those kinds of hours?

[GreigM]

ipitythefool said:

But who determines whether a 2nd home is a worthy expense or not?


Why should the MP for Inverness get the benefit of a 2nd home allowance but the MP for Bromley not so?

So are we saying that after every late-night debate in the Commons, Eric Pickles has to find his way back 37 miles to his house (say 90 mins in a cab), whilst the MP for Powys Gwyneddd just has a 5 min stroll back to his Belgravia flat, paid for by the taxpayer? Hardly fair.

The MP for bromley doesn't have to shuttle back and forward 500 miles many many times over, losing far more time from their existance than the Bromley MP.....its a trade-off.

[sa_20v]

Pathetic - but they're pathetic people so what can we expect? I don't know why we put up with them to be honest, I suppose most of us believe as they've been elected they actually have a clue...

[skoff]

Parrot of Doom said:

skoff said:

The audience turned on him, and he did himself no favours at all by saying that he would have to get up early to get to work on time if he didn't have the flat! Welcome to the real world Eric...

Now I firmly believe that we should pay our MPs well to attract the real talent, and some of them do need second homes. But they really should set an example to the rest of us by not doing what I think are effectively legal 'fiddles'. It just damages their reputation and our faith in them to run the country (if indeed we had any in the first place).

Hang on - what he said was quite right. 37 miles is a fair commute, especially when you may finish well past 10pm and have to be up 7 hours later. By the government's own working time directive such hours are illegal. I wonder how many in the audience worked those kinds of hours?

Well I would then argue that they shouldn't be working those sorts of hours. How can they be expected to be on the ball if they are working too many hours? the working directives are there for a reason. Take doctors as an example, they have successfully, on the whole, managed to reduce the number of hours they work these days...

I have a completely non-important job in IT, but I have had to do some long hours in the past with a long commute (2 hours in and out of London), and I didn't get subsidised. I could have stopped in a hotel at my expense, but I chose not to - MPs should have the same choice, but at their own expense.

[Famous Graham]

Parrot of Doom said:

skoff said:

The audience turned on him, and he did himself no favours at all by saying that he would have to get up early to get to work on time if he didn't have the flat! Welcome to the real world Eric...

Now I firmly believe that we should pay our MPs well to attract the real talent, and some of them do need second homes. But they really should set an example to the rest of us by not doing what I think are effectively legal 'fiddles'. It just damages their reputation and our faith in them to run the country (if indeed we had any in the first place).

Hang on - what he said was quite right. 37 miles is a fair commute, especially when you may finish well past 10pm and have to be up 7 hours later. By the government's own working time directive such hours are illegal. I wonder how many in the audience worked those kinds of hours?

That's not the point though, is it? It's who's paying for that closer flat.

I currently live 15 mins walk from my office. If I decide to buy a house 40 miles away but ask my CEO to pay the rent/mortgage on the existing place here in town, what do you think the answer would be?

If he doesn't like the commute, then move house ffs.

[skoff]

sa_20v said:

Pathetic - but they're pathetic people so what can we expect? I don't know why we put up with them to be honest, I suppose most of us believe as they've been elected they actually have a clue...

Which is exactly why the job should pay more, so we get less pathetic people that want to do a good job.

I get annoyed when I hear politicians saying they don't go into the job for the money - utter nonsense, everybody needs to pay the bills, they wouldn't do it for free, so they do it for the money, ultimately. Let's increase their salaries so there is more competition for the top jobs...

[Parrot of Doom]

Famous Graham said:

Parrot of Doom said:

skoff said:

The audience turned on him, and he did himself no favours at all by saying that he would have to get up early to get to work on time if he didn't have the flat! Welcome to the real world Eric...

Now I firmly believe that we should pay our MPs well to attract the real talent, and some of them do need second homes. But they really should set an example to the rest of us by not doing what I think are effectively legal 'fiddles'. It just damages their reputation and our faith in them to run the country (if indeed we had any in the first place).

Hang on - what he said was quite right. 37 miles is a fair commute, especially when you may finish well past 10pm and have to be up 7 hours later. By the government's own working time directive such hours are illegal. I wonder how many in the audience worked those kinds of hours?

That's not the point though, is it? It's who's paying for that closer flat.

I currently live 15 mins walk from my office. If I decide to buy a house 40 miles away but ask my CEO to pay the rent/mortgage on the existing place here in town, what do you think the answer would be?

If he doesn't like the commute, then move house ffs.

That's a very poor comparison. If your CEO told you that your job would in future entail working on two sites, 37 miles apart across London, with no change in conditions or salary, but longer hours - would you still work for him?

[Mr E]

Sheets Tabuer said:

Why not just have an MP hostel nearby, they have needed to travel there for 100s of years you'd have thought they'd have built something by now.

Yup. It's called a halls of residence is it not?

mattviatura said:

Why not give them accomodation in London comparative with the standards of accomodation provided for troops and their families?

Genius.

[Famous Graham]

Parrot of Doom said:

Famous Graham said:

Parrot of Doom said:

skoff said:

The audience turned on him, and he did himself no favours at all by saying that he would have to get up early to get to work on time if he didn't have the flat! Welcome to the real world Eric...

Now I firmly believe that we should pay our MPs well to attract the real talent, and some of them do need second homes. But they really should set an example to the rest of us by not doing what I think are effectively legal 'fiddles'. It just damages their reputation and our faith in them to run the country (if indeed we had any in the first place).

Hang on - what he said was quite right. 37 miles is a fair commute, especially when you may finish well past 10pm and have to be up 7 hours later. By the government's own working time directive such hours are illegal. I wonder how many in the audience worked those kinds of hours?

That's not the point though, is it? It's who's paying for that closer flat.

I currently live 15 mins walk from my office. If I decide to buy a house 40 miles away but ask my CEO to pay the rent/mortgage on the existing place here in town, what do you think the answer would be?

If he doesn't like the commute, then move house ffs.

That's a very poor comparison. If your CEO told you that your job would in future entail working on two sites, 37 miles apart across London, with no change in conditions or salary, but longer hours - would you still work for him?

Dunno, would depend on the job. But leaving would certainly be an option. As would thinking about living somewhere in between the two locations.

It's not like he didn't know where Westminster and his constituency were located when he applied for the job though, is it?

[skoff]

Parrot of Doom said:

Famous Graham said:

Parrot of Doom said:

skoff said:

The audience turned on him, and he did himself no favours at all by saying that he would have to get up early to get to work on time if he didn't have the flat! Welcome to the real world Eric...

Now I firmly believe that we should pay our MPs well to attract the real talent, and some of them do need second homes. But they really should set an example to the rest of us by not doing what I think are effectively legal 'fiddles'. It just damages their reputation and our faith in them to run the country (if indeed we had any in the first place).

Hang on - what he said was quite right. 37 miles is a fair commute, especially when you may finish well past 10pm and have to be up 7 hours later. By the government's own working time directive such hours are illegal. I wonder how many in the audience worked those kinds of hours?

That's not the point though, is it? It's who's paying for that closer flat.

I currently live 15 mins walk from my office. If I decide to buy a house 40 miles away but ask my CEO to pay the rent/mortgage on the existing place here in town, what do you think the answer would be?

If he doesn't like the commute, then move house ffs.

That's a very poor comparison. If your CEO told you that your job would in future entail working on two sites, 37 miles apart across London, with no change in conditions or salary, but longer hours - would you still work for him?

But MPs working conditions have improved in recent times, with fewer hours, plus I don't think attendance is required except by the party whips... Of course they need to answer to their constituents, but that's the nature of the beast, and rightly so.

[Martial Arts Man]

Famous Graham said:

Parrot of Doom said:

Famous Graham said:

Parrot of Doom said:

skoff said:

The audience turned on him, and he did himself no favours at all by saying that he would have to get up early to get to work on time if he didn't have the flat! Welcome to the real world Eric...

Now I firmly believe that we should pay our MPs well to attract the real talent, and some of them do need second homes. But they really should set an example to the rest of us by not doing what I think are effectively legal 'fiddles'. It just damages their reputation and our faith in them to run the country (if indeed we had any in the first place).

Hang on - what he said was quite right. 37 miles is a fair commute, especially when you may finish well past 10pm and have to be up 7 hours later. By the government's own working time directive such hours are illegal. I wonder how many in the audience worked those kinds of hours?

That's not the point though, is it? It's who's paying for that closer flat.

I currently live 15 mins walk from my office. If I decide to buy a house 40 miles away but ask my CEO to pay the rent/mortgage on the existing place here in town, what do you think the answer would be?

If he doesn't like the commute, then move house ffs.

That's a very poor comparison. If your CEO told you that your job would in future entail working on two sites, 37 miles apart across London, with no change in conditions or salary, but longer hours - would you still work for him?

Dunno, would depend on the job. But leaving would certainly be an option. As would thinking about living somewhere in between the two locations.

It's not like he didn't know where Westminster and his constituency were located when he applied for the job though, is it?

MPs don't get a huge amount of choice as to where their constituency will be though.

I don't think the issue is the second homes, it's the fact that they own these second properties.


I just wish the rest of us could get away with expense sheets like those of an MP.