Who will be the new Labour leader?

[98elise]

johnxjsc1985 said:

We all know why he did it and once again it stinks of one rule for us and one rule for them

My employer pays for accommodation when I work away from home, seems like they follow the same rules as us?

Can you elighten us as to "why he did it"? i can't see that he gets any additional benefit than he did before.

[BlackLabel]

98elise said:

BlackLabel said:

55palfers said:

Burnham looks to have blown his chances - snout in troughwise. They still don't get it, do they.

"Labour leadership favourite Andy Burnham in expenses row over claiming £17,000 a year to rent London flat - despite having his own nearby"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3095142/La...

He's not breaking any rules but it doesn't look good. Why can't he just live in his own London property like Yvette Cooper and Mary Creagh do.

I would imagine that if your employer expected you to work in two cities, you would expect them to pay for acommodation in one of them? If others choose to pay for their own accomodatiom then thats great, but it has nothing to do with this situation.

I have a few investment properties but i wouln't provide use one of them as a second home to suit my employer unless they paid me the going rate for it.

I'm not a labour supporter btw

Between 2005 and 2012 he claimed the mortgage interest on his flat and the value of his home has obviously gone up in that period. Sure he shouldn't be out of pocket for having to work in two cities but why should he be allowed to profit from it?

[johnxjsc1985]

98elise said:

My employer pays for accommodation when I work away from home, seems like they follow the same rules as us?

Can you elighten us as to "why he did it"? i can't see that he gets any additional benefit than he did before.

probably because he didnt get full relief on his mortgage and this way he get all his mortgage paid for and his flat rent too. He has a registered HOME within walking distance when he took this job on he knew he would have to live in London and claims expenses accordingly.He new in 2010 he would live in London for at least 5 years making this his home this is not working away from home at all.

[Crafty_]

"Unite threatens to drop support for Andy Burnham unless he opposes all spending cuts"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11...

In short, what the juddering fk?

What do they expect ?

"Yes Mr Union boss, everything fine and dandy, we're just making cuts for sts and giggles.."

The sooner these people lose their political influence the better.

[RYH64E]

BlackLabel said:

Between 2005 and 2012 he claimed the mortgage interest on his flat and the value of his home has obviously gone up in that period. Sure he shouldn't be out of pocket for having to work in two cities but why should he be allowed to profit from it?

The value has gone up, but back in 2005 that was far from a certain outcome, and who's to know if the value will fall in the future. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with a bit of profit, the profit on his rental income will be taxed at his marginal rate (mortgage interest won't be a huge cost so a big part of the rent will be taxable) and if he ever sells there will be Capital Gains tax to pay.

I'm not a Labour supporter and am no fan of Burnham's, but I'm struggling to see what he's done wrong here.

[Crafty_]

RYH64E said:

The value has gone up, but back in 2005 that was far from a certain outcome, and who's to know if the value will fall in the future. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with a bit of profit, the profit on his rental income will be taxed at his marginal rate (mortgage interest won't be a huge cost so a big part of the rent will be taxable) and if he ever sells there will be Capital Gains tax to pay.

I'm not a Labour supporter and am no fan of Burnham's, but I'm struggling to see what he's done wrong here.

Well for a start he could earn a wage and pay a mortgage and live in his own property, you know, like a normal person (dare I say it a working man, as he claims to represent).

Instead he has a tenant paying his mortgage and is living in another property, for free, paid for by the state.

[98elise]

Crafty_ said:

RYH64E said:

The value has gone up, but back in 2005 that was far from a certain outcome, and who's to know if the value will fall in the future. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with a bit of profit, the profit on his rental income will be taxed at his marginal rate (mortgage interest won't be a huge cost so a big part of the rent will be taxable) and if he ever sells there will be Capital Gains tax to pay.

I'm not a Labour supporter and am no fan of Burnham's, but I'm struggling to see what he's done wrong here.

Well for a start he could earn a wage and pay a mortgage and live in his own property, you know, like a normal person (dare I say it a working man, as he claims to represent).

Instead he has a tenant paying his mortgage and is living in another property, for free, paid for by the state.

I don't know the in's and out's of his finances, but I'm sure he has a home in his constituency which he is paying for.. The nature of his job means that he also needs somewhere to live in London.

As this is an unusual situation the taxpayer meets the additional cost of the second property. Until recently they would pay the interest if he had a mortgage. That has now changed meaning he cannot use his own property at the tax payers cost.

What he does with that property now is no longer a part of the equation.

I'm in no way a Labour supporter, but I cannot see how he has done anything wrong.

[RYH64E]

Crafty_ said:

Well for a start he could earn a wage and pay a mortgage and live in his own property, you know, like a normal person (dare I say it a working man, as he claims to represent).

Instead he has a tenant paying his mortgage and is living in another property, for free, paid for by the state.

Unlike most 'normal' people MPs are required to have two houses, they pay for one and the state pays for the other, that's the deal.

The job doesn't pay enough to expect them to pay for both properties themselves, some may be able to afford to do so through private income, but why should they use their own money to pay for something that their job requires? MPs aren't very well paid, I wouldn't want the job for 10 times the salary.

I'm no fan of politicians, especially Labour politicians, but as I've said before, I'm struggling to see what he's done wrong.

[Troubleatmill]

RYH64E said:

Crafty_ said:

Well for a start he could earn a wage and pay a mortgage and live in his own property, you know, like a normal person (dare I say it a working man, as he claims to represent).

Instead he has a tenant paying his mortgage and is living in another property, for free, paid for by the state.

Unlike most 'normal' people MPs are required to have two houses, they pay for one and the state pays for the other, that's the deal.

The job doesn't pay enough to expect them to pay for both properties themselves, some may be able to afford to do so through private income, but why should they use their own money to pay for something that their job requires? MPs aren't very well paid, I wouldn't want the job for 10 times the salary.

I'm no fan of politicians, especially Labour politicians, but as I've said before, I'm struggling to see what he's done wrong.

If you are not in commuting difference.

Plenty of London MP's seem to manage just fine with 1 house.

[RYH64E]

Troubleatmill said:

If you are not in commuting difference.

Plenty of London MP's seem to manage just fine with 1 house.

How is that relevant to a debate about Burnham, MP for Leigh?

[Crafty_]

RYH64E said:

Unlike most 'normal' people MPs are required to have two houses, they pay for one and the state pays for the other, that's the deal.

The job doesn't pay enough to expect them to pay for both properties themselves, some may be able to afford to do so through private income, but why should they use their own money to pay for something that their job requires? MPs aren't very well paid, I wouldn't want the job for 10 times the salary.

I'm no fan of politicians, especially Labour politicians, but as I've said before, I'm struggling to see what he's done wrong.

I'm not picking on Burnham in particular, they are all as bad as each other.

I do not see why he shouldn't live in the flat he owns and pay the mortgage out of his salary. If he can afford to buy it there should be no reason for him not to live in it.

[RYH64E]

Crafty_ said:

I'm not picking on Burnham in particular, they are all as bad as each other.

I do not see why he shouldn't live in the flat he owns and pay the mortgage out of his salary. If he can afford to buy it there should be no reason for him not to live in it.

Perhaps he could only afford it when the taxpayer paid the interest (not the capital repayment) on his mortgage?

The salary for an MP is £67k, that isn't enough to pay a mortgage on a house in London and a house in their constituency, I doubt it's enough for the London house alone.

[Troubleatmill]

RYH64E said:

Troubleatmill said:

If you are not in commuting difference.

Plenty of London MP's seem to manage just fine with 1 house.

How is that relevant to a debate about Burnham, MP for Leigh?

You are right. I stand corrected.


And what he does with his own money is up to him.

[BlackLabel]

@98elise
@RYH64E

Points well made. Looking at the bigger picture I suppose this has been blown out of proportion somewhat.

However re the profit made on the back of the taxpayer contributing to his mortgage it appears MPs like Burnham did have to repay some of the capital gain (for the period 2010 to 2012).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22457637

[turbobloke]

RYH64E said:

Crafty_ said:

I'm not picking on Burnham in particular, they are all as bad as each other.

I do not see why he shouldn't live in the flat he owns and pay the mortgage out of his salary. If he can afford to buy it there should be no reason for him not to live in it.

Perhaps he could only afford it when the taxpayer paid the interest (not the capital repayment) on his mortgage?

Tough, he should live in something he can afford and not expect handouts. He sounds like a Labour supporter.

[RYH64E]

turbobloke said:

Tough, he should live in something he can afford and not expect handouts. He sounds like a Labour supporter.

An MPs salary of £67k isn't enough to fund a house in London and a constituency home, the alternatives to the current system are a) A significant increase in pay to cover the costs of a second, London house, or b) Only rich people should become MPs. Which would you prefer?

[NoNeed]

They should just build a big block of flats so when somebody is elected and needs one they get it for the time they are in office.

[turbobloke]

RYH64E said:

turbobloke said:

Tough, he should live in something he can afford and not expect handouts. He sounds like a Labour supporter.

An MPs salary of £67k isn't enough to fund a house in London and a constituency home, the alternatives to the current system are a) A significant increase in pay to cover the costs of a second, London house, or b) Only rich people should become MPs. Which would you prefer?

Neither of the above. Curiously the option you missed was c) live in a flat he can afford - sell up (at a profit) and rent if needs be rather than milk the taxpayer for what you describe as a general 'house in London' that he cannot afford. He can easily afford to rent at £67k when the median inner London salary according to ONS is significantly below his income level.

Never forget the Nolan Sisters Principles of Public Life & Service.

[Cheese Mechanic]

NoNeed said:

They should just build a big block of flats so when somebody is elected and needs one they get it for the time they are in office.

Thats been raised before, but fact is, such a place would become a big fat security issue. A place where a terrorist attack could take out a lot of MP's in one hit.

One could say the same regarding Parliament, however, Parliament is an essential, accomadation as suggested is not.

[NoNeed]

Cheese Mechanic said:

NoNeed said:

They should just build a big block of flats so when somebody is elected and needs one they get it for the time they are in office.

Thats been raised before, but fact is, such a place would become a big fat security issue. A place where a terrorist attack could take out a lot of MP's in one hit.

One could say the same regarding Parliament, however, Parliament is an essential, accomadation as suggested is not.

Ok easily solved just get parliament to buy up 700 individual 1 bed flats in the area I'm sure it could be done as they don't have to be walking distance within a 5 mile radius would be fine as London transport is so good.