Awol Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 In the press today that Burnham claims £17,000 per year on expenses to rent a London flat, while renting out his own flat in London for £18,000 per year. Redistribution of wealth - from your pocket to his. A chip off the old block! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 25, 2015 Moderator Share Posted May 25, 2015 In the press today that Burnham claims £17,000 per year on expenses to rent a London flat, while renting out his own flat in London for £18,000 per year.Redistribution of wealth - from your pocket to his. A chip off the old block!Am I correct in thinking that if said flat that he owns had a mortgage on it, he could claim that back anyway? What is the location of the flat he owns compared to the one he rents? What is the difference financially if he just claimed for the one he owns? How long have the tenants been in the one he owns? There's all kinds of factors that come into play.Basically the real question is, is what does he gain from this that he otherwise wouldn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 (edited) In the press today that Burnham claims £17,000 per year on expenses to rent a London flat, while renting out his own flat in London for £18,000 per year. Redistribution of wealth - from your pocket to his. A chip off the old block! Am I correct in thinking that if said flat that he owns had a mortgage on it, he could claim that back anyway? What is the location of the flat he owns compared to the one he rents? What is the difference financially if he just claimed for the one he owns? How long have the tenants been in the one he owns? There's all kinds of factors that come into play. Basically the real question is, is what does he gain from this that he otherwise wouldn't? Andy Burnham claims £17,000 a year in rent for London flat – despite owning another that's walking distance from Westminster Andy Burnham has been claiming more than £17,000 a year in expenses to rent a flat in London despite owning another property a short walk from Westminster. The Labour leadership favourite has received £ 1,449.98 a month since July 2012 to rent a flat close to the property he already owns in Kennington, southeast London. Mr Burnham moved from his original flat, for which he claimed expenses, just before parliamentary rules changed in August 2012, banning MPs from claiming mortgage interest on second homes. He now receives rental income from the property he owns, while receiving taxpayers’ money to cover the cost of his rented flat. Cont'd on link No suggestion that he has broken "the rules" of course, but if there was no benefit to him then why bother? Edited May 25, 2015 by Awol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 25, 2015 Moderator Share Posted May 25, 2015 See the problem there is the rules. Presumably the rent covers his mortgage, so he rents a property because he can claim that back. If thats the reason, then that is completely wrong and should be stopped. The only way to stop it is to get the government to buy flats in London and force MPS to live in them and not allow any of this second home nonsense. Get voted out, move out, new MPs move in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 See the problem there is the rules. Presumably the rent covers his mortgage, so he rents a property because he can claim that back. If thats the reason, then that is completely wrong and should be stopped. The only way to stop it is to get the government to buy flats in London and force MPS to live in them and not allow any of this second home nonsense. Get voted out, move out, new MPs move in Absolutely, we were all saying similar stuff on here back when the expenses scandal broke. The thing that makes me chuckle isn't that MPs have found another way to top up their salaries, it's that Burnham is selling himself as the leadership candidate of the 'common man' while laughing all the way to the bank. If he's Labour's future then they are in trouble, imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chrisp65 Posted May 25, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted May 25, 2015 The problem is not the rules. The problem is people 'playing to the rules'. He can see that isn't right. Write it down, look at it, will it look right to your constituents? No? Well then sod the rules it ain't right. Are you on the side of what is right, or are you about clearing the maximum allowable income 'within the rules'. Stinks. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 25, 2015 Moderator Share Posted May 25, 2015 The whole MP's pay, and second jobs and little backhanders and second homes thing seems to be based around an idea of how our MP's should live - increasingly they seem to feel that they should be paid and rewarded in the same way as others in their 'class' and as we're now seeing them coming more and more from only one 'class' they're moving their natural expectation further and further up. Build serviced apartments within an hours drive of the houses of Parliament and make that the only thing we pay to maintain, pay them £100,000 per year and remove the ability for them to receive any other remuneration during their time in office, additionally, limit the areas in which they can work once they've finished public service to prevent them entering into sweetheart deals. if that in itself means that the type of people who want to be MP's are put off entering into parliamentary duty, then so be it, we can start to move to replace them with people who believe £100,000 a year is a really good salary, you know, people who are in touch with the electorate they claim to represent rather than people who are in touch with the corporate entities they currently represent. MP's have fallen onto the wrong side of that divide, professionally, socially and in terms of the way they collectively think - it's not corruption, it's our misunderstanding of what they now do - we have to change both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Why are they in London? The BBC was made to move as it was too London centric. Would we be better off with a building project somewhere broadly in the midlands, somewhere between Coventry and Nottingham and Brum where land is relatively cheap to build a world class accessible parliament in the centre of the country with 800 or 1,600 serviced flats available to MP's and PA's during their tenure. Incidentally, I'm sure you all know I'm not based in the midlands so that's not just me having a Redditch bias or whatever. Just build something with good motorway, rail and air links. If it was close enough to the NEC it would have all that at a fraction of current costs and it would be a major building project and could even kick start a new town in the area. Yes, it would probably then gravitationally pull lobbyists and dearer housing in to that area over time. Well, that's a boost to somewhere other than London then isn't it. Just make sure you understand the need for affordable housing and a living wage and that can be dealt with. It's too late for London, you can't wind back the price of houses in Peckham or Brixton now. But you could create a belt of not to be privatised social housing with green space - it might even be a template for other towns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 See the problem there is the rules. Presumably the rent covers his mortgage, so he rents a property because he can claim that back. If thats the reason, then that is completely wrong and should be stopped. The only way to stop it is to get the government to buy flats in London and force MPS to live in them and not allow any of this second home nonsense. Get voted out, move out, new MPs move in surely the rules are simple ... A Tory does it and the response is " thieving crook etc " , Labour bloke does it and we find a justification for it * * yeah yeah , I know , you don't support Labour and all that 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Why are they in London? The BBC was made to move as it was too London centric. Would we be better off with a building project somewhere broadly in the midlands, somewhere between Coventry and Nottingham and Brum where land is relatively cheap to build a world class accessible parliament in the centre of the country with 800 or 1,600 serviced flats available to MP's and PA's during their tenure. Incidentally, I'm sure you all know I'm not based in the midlands so that's not just me having a Redditch bias or whatever. Just build something with good motorway, rail and air links. If it was close enough to the NEC it would have all that at a fraction of current costs and it would be a major building project and could even kick start a new town in the area. Yes, it would probably then gravitationally pull lobbyists and dearer housing in to that area over time. Well, that's a boost to somewhere other than London then isn't it. Just make sure you understand the need for affordable housing and a living wage and that can be dealt with. It's too late for London, you can't wind back the price of houses in Peckham or Brixton now. But you could create a belt of not to be privatised social housing with green space - it might even be a template for other towns. We could follow the logic of the Germans when they moved their capital to Bonn after the war to signify that the country was divided. As the UK is now divided economically, politically and culturally, the capital should be moved to acknowledge that fact, with the proviso that once some kind of unity returns it should move back to London again. The Palace of Westminster is falling down, the first in line to the thrown is not fit to reign, so it would be cheaper to move. Birmingham would be ideal, being that Manchester is capital of the North, London dominates the south, and Birmingham occupies that terra nullius in between, which most people do their best to forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Unsurprising news of the day: Chucky Egg backs Kendall. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/26/chuka-umunna-backs-liz-kendall-labour-leadership Chuka Umunna, the shadow business secretary, has endorsed Liz Kendall for the Labour party leadership in a move that will bolster her chances of getting on to the ballot and even winning the contest. There had been speculation that he might back either Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, or Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, decisions that would have been near-fatal for Kendall. Umunna pulled out of the contest within days of announcing he was going to run, citing personal reasons and the unexpected level of media attention. Kendall will now be hoping she can win the backing of former cabinet minister Alan Johnson. In a statement with other Kendall supporters, Umunna writes: “The party must move beyond its comfort zone and find new ways of realising its age-old goals of equality and freedom. “It is no longer simply enough to get into power and, from Whitehall, pull the old social-democratic levers: tax rates and regulation, welfare payments and tax credits. They have their place but these alone are inadequate to the task of delivering a fair, united society at a time when technology cycles are speeding up, new economic competitors are on the rise and the makeup and identity of our country are evolving. “Living up to our age-old mission demands a willingness to grapple with the economic, social and global challenges as they are before us now.” The statement calls for a reshaping of the state: “moving towards a more federal United Kingdom, devolving power and money to cities and regions, reforming our electoral system and political bodies to reflect the more open and pluralistic country they represent. And it means a new approach to public services: integrating health, mental health and social care services, starting at ‘what works’ and putting the principles of prevention and innovation at the heart of the welfare state”. They say: “Kendall has asked the tough questions and started to chart a course to the answers. She has been courageous in challenging conventional wisdom. She has no compunction in moving Labour beyond our comfort zone and is determined to build a team ready to chart a route forward.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Unsurprising news of the day: Chucky Egg backs Kendall. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/26/chuka-umunna-backs-liz-kendall-labour-leadership Chuka Umunna, the shadow business secretary, has endorsed Liz Kendall for the Labour party leadership in a move that will bolster her chances of getting on to the ballot and even winning the contest. There had been speculation that he might back either Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, or Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, decisions that would have been near-fatal for Kendall. Umunna pulled out of the contest within days of announcing he was going to run, citing personal reasons and the unexpected level of media attention. Kendall will now be hoping she can win the backing of former cabinet minister Alan Johnson. In a statement with other Kendall supporters, Umunna writes: “The party must move beyond its comfort zone and find new ways of realising its age-old goals of equality and freedom. “It is no longer simply enough to get into power and, from Whitehall, pull the old social-democratic levers: tax rates and regulation, welfare payments and tax credits. They have their place but these alone are inadequate to the task of delivering a fair, united society at a time when technology cycles are speeding up, new economic competitors are on the rise and the makeup and identity of our country are evolving. “Living up to our age-old mission demands a willingness to grapple with the economic, social and global challenges as they are before us now.” The statement calls for a reshaping of the state: “moving towards a more federal United Kingdom, devolving power and money to cities and regions, reforming our electoral system and political bodies to reflect the more open and pluralistic country they represent. And it means a new approach to public services: integrating health, mental health and social care services, starting at ‘what works’ and putting the principles of prevention and innovation at the heart of the welfare state”. They say: “Kendall has asked the tough questions and started to chart a course to the answers. She has been courageous in challenging conventional wisdom. She has no compunction in moving Labour beyond our comfort zone and is determined to build a team ready to chart a route forward.” The big question as regards Kendall's fitness for the role, surrounds the fact that her favourite record was Club Tropicana by Wham. I am sure that there will be at least some on VT who will consider such an error of judgement, makes her unfit for the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 I think you'll find Wham! on the ironically cool list of many a lefty. Personally, I bought a copy of the album in a shallow ploy to get sex. I figured that if I could just get a girl back to my bedroom, I could produce said album, play it and get top inside as a minimum. 18 months later, that Wham! album still had the cellophane on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 I think Kendall stands a very good chance now. Wouldn't be surprised to see here made favourite over the next couple of weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 I think you'll find Wham! on the ironically cool list of many a lefty. Personally, I bought a copy of the album in a shallow ploy to get sex. I figured that if I could just get a girl back to my bedroom, I could produce said album, play it and get top inside as a minimum. 18 months later, that Wham! album still had the cellophane on it. Cameron's declared passion for Benny Hill stinks of forced irony, where his known liking of Phil Collins can never be anything other than totally naff. I've lost count of the number of mates who suddenly ditched their own taste in music to worm their way into the affections of some wench or other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 (edited) See the problem there is the rules.I'm not sure I agree with that (the rules are a problem but that's not all).People don't have to play 'the rules' for all they can get (and I think there are members of parliament - though their number may be few - who haven't done that).Edit: I see that was covered almost immediately by our honourable member for Barry. Edited May 26, 2015 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Build serviced apartments within an hours drive of the houses of Parliament...About 5 miles away then?Sorry but I think the whole 'halls of residence' idea is rather a daft counter to the problems of expenses/second homes.There is a lot that still needs to be sorted out about MPs' expenses and second home stuff but this kind of idea comes from a desire to retaliate (against scandalous abuse) rather than to address the issues that abound now and also take in to consideration the reason why you might look at allowing the representatives of constituencies that may be many hundreds of miles away from being disadvantaged from having to commit their time to Westminster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 The big question as regards Kendall's fitness for the role, surrounds the fact that her favourite record was Club Tropicana by Wham. "There's enough for everyone." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Pay MPs £100,000 a year and how they get to their place of work (Westminster) is their problem. Just like it is for everyone else with a job. Build a halls of residence type thing for them to stay in when they are in London if they live more than 2 hours away by public transport. Anyone else within that 2 hours uses public transport to get to work. Ban MPs from employing family members Remove the bars from the HoC. And thats before I start on the Lords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) Pay MPs £100,000 a year and how they get to their place of work (Westminster) is their problem.It isn't really, though, is it? They don't get the sack for not turning up - there's an opportunity only once every five years for their constituents to give them the sack.How (and whether) they get there is the problem of the constiuents that they're there to represent in the end.Westminster isn't (or shouldn't be) their only place of work - their constituency ought to be, too.There's a great deal of difference between being MP for Orkney & Shetland and MP for Surrey Heath, for example. Edited May 27, 2015 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts