MP's snouts in the trough again..whats the answer
Discussion
Deva Link said:
It's breathtaking really - like the Conservative husband and wife couple, the Wintertons: Once the taxpayer had cleared the mortgage on their flat they put it into trust in their sons' names and then claimed rent to pay into the trust "because they had to to satisfy the trust rules".
I know what you mean however it's not so bad when torys do it ie not quite so hipocritcal 
powerstroke said:
Deva Link said:
It's breathtaking really - like the Conservative husband and wife couple, the Wintertons: Once the taxpayer had cleared the mortgage on their flat they put it into trust in their sons' names and then claimed rent to pay into the trust "because they had to to satisfy the trust rules".
I know what you mean however it's not so bad when torys do it ie not quite so hipocritcal 
t - but then equally, true free-market Cons and liberal LibDims have no place carrying on like this. The whole lot need to be torn into.I'm enjoying the way this is developing.
porridge said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219886/La...
Halifax MP Mrs Riordan, a member of the Socialist Campaign Group, rents out her £400,000 London flat to fellow Labour MP Iain McKenzie.
Mr McKenzie pays her £1,560 a month in rent – equal to £18,720 a year – which he claims back from the taxpayer.
Official records show that Mrs Riordan’s mortgage fell to £562 a month in 2009 when interest rates hit their current low level.
Assuming the rate is unchanged, she is now making £1,000 a month in clear profit from the rental payments to supplement her MPs’ salary of £65,738.
At the same time, Mrs Riordan, 59, claims £1,473 a month – equal to £17,676 a year – from the taxpayer for renting a separate flat in London for herself. She also has a home in Northowram, Halifax, which she has owned outright for more than 20 years.
The arrangement means she now has three properties, two of which are funded by the taxpayer.
Mrs Riordan, a widow, also employs her 51-year-old partner Stephen Roberts as a ‘senior researcher’ on a taxpayer-funded salary of up to £42,000.
She did not respond to calls last night and Mr Roberts declined to comment.
fHalifax MP Mrs Riordan, a member of the Socialist Campaign Group, rents out her £400,000 London flat to fellow Labour MP Iain McKenzie.
Mr McKenzie pays her £1,560 a month in rent – equal to £18,720 a year – which he claims back from the taxpayer.
Official records show that Mrs Riordan’s mortgage fell to £562 a month in 2009 when interest rates hit their current low level.
Assuming the rate is unchanged, she is now making £1,000 a month in clear profit from the rental payments to supplement her MPs’ salary of £65,738.
At the same time, Mrs Riordan, 59, claims £1,473 a month – equal to £17,676 a year – from the taxpayer for renting a separate flat in London for herself. She also has a home in Northowram, Halifax, which she has owned outright for more than 20 years.
The arrangement means she now has three properties, two of which are funded by the taxpayer.
Mrs Riordan, a widow, also employs her 51-year-old partner Stephen Roberts as a ‘senior researcher’ on a taxpayer-funded salary of up to £42,000.
She did not respond to calls last night and Mr Roberts declined to comment.
king fat pig troughing cow faced hag.Mojocvh said:
Digga said:
AJS- said:
66k plus accommodation is far from bugger all.
And they're in London to represent their constituents in parliament, then go back there, not to go swanning around expensive restaurants with their mistresses and partying with billionaire playboys.
I understand the argument that paying them more reduces their need to find alternative sources of income like fiddling expenses and other forms of corruption, I just don't think it really applies here.
^All of this.And they're in London to represent their constituents in parliament, then go back there, not to go swanning around expensive restaurants with their mistresses and partying with billionaire playboys.
I understand the argument that paying them more reduces their need to find alternative sources of income like fiddling expenses and other forms of corruption, I just don't think it really applies here.
And yes, I also agree with Murph7355 in making them submit reciepts - like the rest of us have to - for all their expenses and that this cannot include lunch. They can live by the rules they impose on every other working person or leave their office AFAIK.
66k might be bugger all for London, but they dont live there. They go for a meeting. They go home again. You know, like everyone else in the f
king country who pops to the capital for meetings/so forth.I'm not surprised, not in the slightest. Nor am I going to be surprised when nothing happens about it.
roachcoach said:
66k might be bugger all for London, but they dont live there. They go for a meeting. They go home again. You know, like everyone else in the fking country who pops to the capital for meetings/so forth.
wrong , I go for meetings but subsidised lunches are not the norm, unless of course your a gutter eating pig.king country who pops to the capital for meetings/so forth.porridge said:
roachcoach said:
66k might be bugger all for London, .
This is an ongoing myth told by the same small minority on here who have a limited social circle, the truth is that the majority of people who will never earn near that amount.I suppose it depends on your definition of 'bugger all' vs cost of living in an area really.
Edited by roachcoach on Friday 19th October 09:53
powerstroke said:
PlankWithANailIn said:
Cabinet ministers get loads of perks that senior staff in the private sector can only dream of (unless they take the hit to the companies profits).
Free houses
Slaves.....staff
More Slaves........staff
Free cars,driven by slaves...staff.
Thousands of public school educated slaves to do all their work for them...staff
Junior roles have no responsibility as no one in the press (let alone the public) even know their jobs exists.
And what skills do they need? Superb brown nosing, square dress sense, middle of the road ideas.
There is a reason hundreds of civil servants get paid more than the PM, and that is that the PM (and the rest of the ministerial roles) is an unskilled job, show me the job description and prove me wrong.
Frankly if they don't like the salary they should not have taken the job, it's not like the remuneration is a secret.
Yes and on a more general note its high time we questioned how much a lot of people in the public sector and PLCs are paid?? once it gets over about £75kFree houses
Slaves.....staff
More Slaves........staff
Free cars,driven by slaves...staff.
Thousands of public school educated slaves to do all their work for them...staff
Junior roles have no responsibility as no one in the press (let alone the public) even know their jobs exists.
And what skills do they need? Superb brown nosing, square dress sense, middle of the road ideas.
There is a reason hundreds of civil servants get paid more than the PM, and that is that the PM (and the rest of the ministerial roles) is an unskilled job, show me the job description and prove me wrong.
Frankly if they don't like the salary they should not have taken the job, it's not like the remuneration is a secret.
its way over what they are worth , seems the more people are paid the less responsibilty they will take and the more greedy and selfish they become!! thinking bankers and heads of goverment departments, if you build up a sucsesfull business you deserve the reward but if you are a 3rd rate acountant with a brown nose ?????
porridge said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219886/La...
Halifax MP Mrs Riordan, a member of the Socialist Campaign Group, rents out her £400,000 London flat to fellow Labour MP Iain McKenzie.
Mr McKenzie pays her £1,560 a month in rent – equal to £18,720 a year – which he claims back from the taxpayer.
Official records show that Mrs Riordan’s mortgage fell to £562 a month in 2009 when interest rates hit their current low level.
Assuming the rate is unchanged, she is now making £1,000 a month in clear profit from the rental payments to supplement her MPs’ salary of £65,738.
At the same time, Mrs Riordan, 59, claims £1,473 a month – equal to £17,676 a year – from the taxpayer for renting a separate flat in London for herself. She also has a home in Northowram, Halifax, which she has owned outright for more than 20 years.
The arrangement means she now has three properties, two of which are funded by the taxpayer.
Mrs Riordan, a widow, also employs her 51-year-old partner Stephen Roberts as a ‘senior researcher’ on a taxpayer-funded salary of up to £42,000.
She did not respond to calls last night and Mr Roberts declined to comment.
Really?Halifax MP Mrs Riordan, a member of the Socialist Campaign Group, rents out her £400,000 London flat to fellow Labour MP Iain McKenzie.
Mr McKenzie pays her £1,560 a month in rent – equal to £18,720 a year – which he claims back from the taxpayer.
Official records show that Mrs Riordan’s mortgage fell to £562 a month in 2009 when interest rates hit their current low level.
Assuming the rate is unchanged, she is now making £1,000 a month in clear profit from the rental payments to supplement her MPs’ salary of £65,738.
At the same time, Mrs Riordan, 59, claims £1,473 a month – equal to £17,676 a year – from the taxpayer for renting a separate flat in London for herself. She also has a home in Northowram, Halifax, which she has owned outright for more than 20 years.
The arrangement means she now has three properties, two of which are funded by the taxpayer.
Mrs Riordan, a widow, also employs her 51-year-old partner Stephen Roberts as a ‘senior researcher’ on a taxpayer-funded salary of up to £42,000.
She did not respond to calls last night and Mr Roberts declined to comment.
So f
king what?Utter non story.
Why a non story?
If she stayed in her flat she would get a much smaller amount I.e. mortgage value.
So instead she is renting it and making a profit as the uk tax payer is paying her london rent whilst she obtains market rent to pay her London mortgage off.
She is making a greedy profit at my expense = story.
If she stayed in her flat she would get a much smaller amount I.e. mortgage value.
So instead she is renting it and making a profit as the uk tax payer is paying her london rent whilst she obtains market rent to pay her London mortgage off.
She is making a greedy profit at my expense = story.
Edited by porridge on Friday 19th October 10:52
ClaphamGT3 said:
If you want to stop this sort of thing, someone has to sort out the 30-year fudge of MP pay.
Pay them a rate that reflects the importance of what they do but stop all expenses and make earning external income whilst drawing a parliamentary salary an offence. They make their own housing and pension provisions and when they leave office they can do what they like but if they use their parliamentary connections for financial gain they are disbarred from all political office for life.
The pay would probably need to be, as a minimum;
Back bencher £250k
PPS £350k
Junior minister £500k
Cabinet/leader of opp £750k
PM £1m
Pay them a rate that reflects the importance of what they do but stop all expenses and make earning external income whilst drawing a parliamentary salary an offence. They make their own housing and pension provisions and when they leave office they can do what they like but if they use their parliamentary connections for financial gain they are disbarred from all political office for life.
The pay would probably need to be, as a minimum;
Back bencher £250k
PPS £350k
Junior minister £500k
Cabinet/leader of opp £750k
PM £1m
JDRoest said:
MPs should be limited to 2, maybe 3 terms, Cabinet ministers an extra 2 terms, and PM 2 terms maximum. This would address all the people who think politics is a career, and get rid of stalwarts like the odious Wedgwood Benn, Ted Heath, and so forth, hanging round Parliament like a bad smell. It would also mean that Blair and most of his cronies have no option but to retire.
If we coould combine these two and indeed make it a rule that you cannot be an MP until you are at least 55 may be 60.I dont want career politicans as MPs I want someone who has had experience out there in the real world, whether its as a steward on a cruise ship or the CEO of an multinational company. So if we barred people until they had decent experience that would be good. The only issue with restricting there length in service would mean they would have no long term interest in the outcome of their votes.
Maybe the solution is that after a MP has been in an MP for 2 terms they have to stand with a candidate of the same party. Voters could then elect with of the 2 candidates for that party they wanted, but the total votes of those two would count as one for the seat!
Chrisgr31 said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
If you want to stop this sort of thing, someone has to sort out the 30-year fudge of MP pay.
Pay them a rate that reflects the importance of what they do but stop all expenses and make earning external income whilst drawing a parliamentary salary an offence. They make their own housing and pension provisions and when they leave office they can do what they like but if they use their parliamentary connections for financial gain they are disbarred from all political office for life.
The pay would probably need to be, as a minimum;
Back bencher £250k
PPS £350k
Junior minister £500k
Cabinet/leader of opp £750k
PM £1m
Pay them a rate that reflects the importance of what they do but stop all expenses and make earning external income whilst drawing a parliamentary salary an offence. They make their own housing and pension provisions and when they leave office they can do what they like but if they use their parliamentary connections for financial gain they are disbarred from all political office for life.
The pay would probably need to be, as a minimum;
Back bencher £250k
PPS £350k
Junior minister £500k
Cabinet/leader of opp £750k
PM £1m
JDRoest said:
MPs should be limited to 2, maybe 3 terms, Cabinet ministers an extra 2 terms, and PM 2 terms maximum. This would address all the people who think politics is a career, and get rid of stalwarts like the odious Wedgwood Benn, Ted Heath, and so forth, hanging round Parliament like a bad smell. It would also mean that Blair and most of his cronies have no option but to retire.
If we coould combine these two and indeed make it a rule that you cannot be an MP until you are at least 55 may be 60.I dont want career politicans as MPs I want someone who has had experience out there in the real world, whether its as a steward on a cruise ship or the CEO of an multinational company. So if we barred people until they had decent experience that would be good. The only issue with restricting there length in service would mean they would have no long term interest in the outcome of their votes.
Maybe the solution is that after a MP has been in an MP for 2 terms they have to stand with a candidate of the same party. Voters could then elect with of the 2 candidates for that party they wanted, but the total votes of those two would count as one for the seat!
Atlee, a career politician
Churchill, a career politician
Eden, A career politician
MacMillan, businessman but also life-long politician
Home, Land-owner & life-long politician
Wilson, a career politician
Heath, a career politician
Callaghan, a career politician
Thatcher, Research chemist, turned Barrister before becoming a politician
Major an accountant turned banker before becoming a politician, returned to banking
Blair, career politician
Brown, career politician
Cameron, Briefly a PR executive before entering career politics
ClaphamGT3 said:
Chrisgr31 said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
If you want to stop this sort of thing, someone has to sort out the 30-year fudge of MP pay.
Pay them a rate that reflects the importance of what they do but stop all expenses and make earning external income whilst drawing a parliamentary salary an offence. They make their own housing and pension provisions and when they leave office they can do what they like but if they use their parliamentary connections for financial gain they are disbarred from all political office for life.
The pay would probably need to be, as a minimum;
Back bencher £250k
PPS £350k
Junior minister £500k
Cabinet/leader of opp £750k
PM £1m
Pay them a rate that reflects the importance of what they do but stop all expenses and make earning external income whilst drawing a parliamentary salary an offence. They make their own housing and pension provisions and when they leave office they can do what they like but if they use their parliamentary connections for financial gain they are disbarred from all political office for life.
The pay would probably need to be, as a minimum;
Back bencher £250k
PPS £350k
Junior minister £500k
Cabinet/leader of opp £750k
PM £1m
JDRoest said:
MPs should be limited to 2, maybe 3 terms, Cabinet ministers an extra 2 terms, and PM 2 terms maximum. This would address all the people who think politics is a career, and get rid of stalwarts like the odious Wedgwood Benn, Ted Heath, and so forth, hanging round Parliament like a bad smell. It would also mean that Blair and most of his cronies have no option but to retire.
If we coould combine these two and indeed make it a rule that you cannot be an MP until you are at least 55 may be 60.I dont want career politicans as MPs I want someone who has had experience out there in the real world, whether its as a steward on a cruise ship or the CEO of an multinational company. So if we barred people until they had decent experience that would be good. The only issue with restricting there length in service would mean they would have no long term interest in the outcome of their votes.
Maybe the solution is that after a MP has been in an MP for 2 terms they have to stand with a candidate of the same party. Voters could then elect with of the 2 candidates for that party they wanted, but the total votes of those two would count as one for the seat!
Atlee, a career politician
Churchill, a career politician
Eden, A career politician
MacMillan, businessman but also life-long politician
Home, Land-owner & life-long politician
Wilson, a career politician
Heath, a career politician
Callaghan, a career politician
Thatcher, Research chemist, turned Barrister before becoming a politician
Major an accountant turned banker before becoming a politician, returned to banking
Blair, career politician
Brown, career politician
Cameron, Briefly a PR executive before entering career politics
lights fuse and runs
We (or the press) have created this problem. The politicians were always going to look for creative ways to stay within the rules. I would prefer to see them pay more, but with fewer of them.
Housing etc. is not solely a MP's benefit. I have clients who provide flats for senior staff. These are limited though, and company takes the tenancy directly, and it's available for others when not in use.
I really like the Travelodge idea. It's not really a large security risk - It's not as if there is no idea where find MP's in the day time!
Housing etc. is not solely a MP's benefit. I have clients who provide flats for senior staff. These are limited though, and company takes the tenancy directly, and it's available for others when not in use.
I really like the Travelodge idea. It's not really a large security risk - It's not as if there is no idea where find MP's in the day time!
powerstroke said:
hornet said:
Some sort of zonal system would seem reasonable? Scrap expenses entirely and simply pay a salary based on zones defined by distance from Westminster. Further out you are, the more you receive. Much easier to administer and far less opaque than the current situation.
Maybe make them do like most other folk when living elsewere in the UK and looking at a job that involves some time in the capital, accept its part of the job!!!!!£60K plus is alot more than most peoples salarys!!! yes even people who travel distances to work in the Smoke.... porridge said:
This is an ongoing myth told by the same small minority on here who have a limited social circle, the truth is that the majority of people who will never earn near that amount.
^^^Yep^^^^ I work in London. Live outside, don't even earn close to an MPs salary - make many times my salary for the company - pay my own travel (after income tax) . Do I claim any tax payers money? Of course I friggin don't.oyster said:
Everyone I've ever worked with or for, or who has worked for me claims expenses for working away from home base - what do you mean by 'accpeting it as part of the job'?
To be fair, if you or your employees took this piss like the MP's do, you'd be pushing for fraud charges.oyster said:
powerstroke said:
hornet said:
Some sort of zonal system would seem reasonable? Scrap expenses entirely and simply pay a salary based on zones defined by distance from Westminster. Further out you are, the more you receive. Much easier to administer and far less opaque than the current situation.
Maybe make them do like most other folk when living elsewere in the UK and looking at a job that involves some time in the capital, accept its part of the job!!!!!£60K plus is alot more than most peoples salarys!!! yes even people who travel distances to work in the Smoke.... (MPs)know whats involved before they run for office.... they make a choice..
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff