MPs opted to keep their £24,000 second homes allowances.

[Saracen]

Oh, and another thing.

172 MPs voted to keep their existing housing allowance as it stands. 144 voted against.

That's 316 MPs voting.

But there's, what, 646 MPs.

So .... less than half care enough about this issue to vote.

And where were the other 334, including Gordon Brown, that didn't vote?

[Russ]

Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton North East),

Mine didnt vote in favour, but he doesnt need to, i drive past his house on the way to wok, and its amazing. can only imagine how posh his second home must be.

[CrimsonAvenger]

The hole they are digging is getting ever bigger.

Saracen - Great post, hits the spot with every point

[Lucio]

Oh, and another thing.

172 MPs voted to keep their existing housing allowance as it stands. 144 voted against.

That's 316 MPs voting.

But there's, what, 646 MPs.

So .... less than half care enough about this issue to vote.

And where were the other 334, including Gordon Brown, that didn't vote?

Never understood that one, these people are paid to turn up and decide on behalf of their constituients what's best for them and yet, by law, no MP *has* to vote on an issue?? It's crazy! Every MP should be present for every vote, no excuses. After all, isn't this WHY they're paid for a second home in London, so they can easily attend every vote??

[directhex]

Aren't they meant to be working for 'the people', in which case surely 'the people' should decide on such things?

I think I need to find a company where they let all the employees vote on whether to have 24k expenditure...

(I do try and keep my nose away from politics, as in my opinion it's all a load of injustice)

if you don't like it, shove your vote where it best pleases you.

[pollaxe]

And where were the other 334, including Gordon Brown, that didn't vote?

Out taking another circuit on the Gravy Train, perhaps?

[Saracen]

wish i had 24k to do up my house

I presume you mean, like MPs, £24k per year.

[badass]

I dont take issue specifically with what MP's get paid for their perks.

The problem is that they get to vote on their own pay and perks

Its obscene. Of course they are going to take the mickey. People are always capable of justifying to themselves why they are worth more money than they are currently getting. And MP's get to put that self justification into practice.
Is there anywhere else in this country that people get to vote on their own salaries?

[Saracen]

Out taking another circuit on the Gravy Train, perhaps?

According to the Daily Politics show, Gordon Brown has this morning said he was "disappointed" with how things turned out.

Well, Gordon, perhaps if you'd bothered to vote yourself, it might have made a difference. Perhaps if you'd taken a leadership role in this and exerted government pressure, it would have been different. After all, it's your own Home Secretary and 32 other government ministers that were among those that voted to "disappoint" you.

And Gordon, if you need to know what "leadership" means, can I suggest looking it up in a dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary is pretty good .... and I'm sure your parliamentary expense account would cover the cost of buying it.


I seriously wonder if MPs have any idea just how this is playing in the country. I wonder if they have any idea of how much real anger and resentment there is over this. And it's not because MPs get expenses, or even how much they get. It's because of the handful of highly publicised examples of what they spend it on. It's the perception of abuse, regardless of how extensive it actually is, and the perception of MPs considering themselves as above being held to account. It's the superior, ruling-class mentality. It's because they, at the least, put across the appearance of considering themselves above the rest of us, and not accountable for their actions. In reality, the truth is that they are public servants (or supposed to be, anyway) and ought to be held to a higher level of accountability than the rest of us, not have the way they spend our money shrouded in mystery and privilege, as it currently is.

It's not just the situation with expenses or the £24k. It;s the perception of arrogance and indifference that it creates. It's the sense that they think they're a ruling class. As I said before, a lot of MPs are seriously upset, and consider that MPs ought to be fully and transparently accountable.

As for Gordon Brown, I think this is going to be yet another nail on the coffin of his leadership, precisely because it scores a huge PR own goal because of his lack of leadership and direction.

On the 42 days issue, he managed to rally, browbeat, cajole threaten or bribe his way to a narrow victory. On this business of expenses, he clearly doesn't care enough to even bother to try to clean up MPs acts.

On the 42 days, he says no deals were done. Well, I trust that remark about as much as I trust his assertion that the polling results had nothing to do with his decision not to call an election .... a decision I rather suspect he's rueing by now. And in both cases, I don't believe a word of it and I don't know anyone that does.

Well, he'll rue this decision (or lack of) too. Because, after the Tory front bench voted pretty much in it's entirety, along with most of the party, for reform, and those reforms were scuppered by Brown's own ministers (because, if those 33 had voted the other way, the measure would have gone through) I'd guess Cameron is going to shove this down Brown's throat .... publicly, repeatedly and probably with smug satisfaction.

Gordon, grow a pair and start leading your party for a change. Forget trying to shore up your dwindling credibility over 42 days, and actually show some leadership. Or better yet, don't. Because the clock to the next election is ticking.


I wondered, for a few nanoseconds, why the Tories seemed to be so keen to put Brown down, to prod Labour into changing leaders. Then it dawned on me.

Gordon Brown is Cameron's secret weapon, his best advocate for a Tory victory. He doesn't want a new Labour leader, who might credibly be able to blame past farces on Brown/Blair and get away with the "new broom" ploy. So Cameron desperately wants Brown in power to fight the next election.

So, given that he wants him to stay, he prods Labour to get rid of him by belittling him, such as at PMQs, putting him on the back foot, like of the Hoon/Vaz letter.

It's a win-win (or win-win-win) situation. While he's doing it, he's snipping away at Brown's remaining credibility. Win. If Brown goes, he can point to Brown as the failure, both as Chancellor and PM, that got us into this mess, and remind people that a year ago, Brown was "crowned" by Labour acclamation, with NOBODY else in Labour having the balls even to stand against him, let alone suggest they may win. So, a year ago, Labour thought Brown was a good thing. Oh, and of course, the Tories can then claim that it took their advice and their opposition to show up Brown for what he was - ineffectual. Win.

And if, as seems likely, Labour bottle out of dumping him and stay with him for the next election, that's the really big win for the Tories. They get to fight the next general election, with a leader carrying all the baggage that Brown is currently carrying .... including this farce over what, whether it's a true perception or not, is perceived as snout-in-the-though MPs and, especially as those 33 ministers, government MPs.

There've been some highly embarrassing Tory abuses of this system, but if Labour bring that up now, Cameron can, quite rightly, say that the Tory party voted overwhelmingly to reform the system that permitted those abuses, to make things more transparent and to introduce external audit oversight, and Labour ministers blocked it. Labour, over the wishes of the Tory party, voted to perpetuate the snout-in-the-trough system that produced those abuses.

Gordon, if you couldn't see the potential political damage, the mileage Cameron will make from this, then your political antennae must have atrophied and dropped off while you sat in the Treasury for 10 years, borrowing and spending the country into a mess, waiting to get the top job by the (politically) dead-man's-shoes method of promotion.



In terms of the issues facing the country, MPs expenses is trivial. But it's extremely visible. It's politically volatile even if, in the scheme of things, it's trivial. As an emotive issue, it'll punch way above it's weight. In my opinion, if Brown has calculated that by exerting government pressure over this, he'd use up too much political capital (yes, we're back to those nod-wink deals he claims he doesn't do), then he's miscalculated, because I don't see this issue going away. It MUST be dealt with, sooner or later, to try to restore at least some faith in our political class, and some sense that they have moral authority to make decisions on our behalf, and aren't just leeches out for what they can get .... which most, in my view, aren't. And it won't go away until it is dealt with properly.

[Saracen]

I dont take issue specifically with what MP's get paid for their perks.

The problem is that they get to vote on their own pay and perks

Its obscene. Of course they are going to take the mickey. People are always capable of justifying to themselves why they are worth more money than they are currently getting. And MP's get to put that self justification into practice.
Is there anywhere else in this country that people get to vote on their own salaries?

There's two issues, and they're both hot ones.

One is that point of yours about salaries. And I agree.

The other is about "expenses". By my definition, expenses are supposed to be reimbursement of the costs you necessarily incurred as a requirement of doing the job.

So, necessary staff costs is fine. Buying the stationary to send letters, or computers to do the work is fine. Necessary travel costs are fine. Accommodation when you need to stay away from home.... fine.

But there's two caveats. Expenses are to reimburse necessary costs. And, not only should there be practical limits (so the evening meal while staying away should be decent, but that doesn't include dinner at the Ritz every night). There need to be limits on what is and is not allowed.

Secondly, it's to reimburse costs .... not to provide unnecessary capital luxuries or to provide finance for buying property that will accumulate hugely in capital value.

Expenses are not a supplement to salary. It's to get back what you need to spend to do the job, and the incumbent ought to take reasonable steps to keep those costs down.

For instance, one MP recently revealed that he just discovered that if you booked ahead on train travel, it was a lot cheaper than turning up on the day. I'll say it is. I do one journey regularly. Book three or four weeks ahead, and it costs me about £30 return. Show up on the day and it was £100 one-way. Yet, until recently, that MP admitted he'd just turned up on the day and bought a ticket. Now, he says, he books in advance and it reduces the cost, that he can of course claim for, hugely. It's the lack of that type of common sense, and care and consideration for taxpayers money, that can lead to some of these expenses being as high as they are. And yet, MPs reckon they're in touch with the problems of the people and "understand" what it's like. The hell they do, as evidenced by the surprise that MP showed at discovering that cost discrepancy. Well, perhaps he's woken up a bit. What about all the others?

[Mblaster]

I seriously wonder if MPs have any idea just how this is playing in the country. I wonder if they have any idea of how much real anger and resentment there is over this.

I think the thing is, that it reflects badly on all of them, not one party specifially.

The negative effects of this for the MP's aren't very significant at all. People feel angry that the MP's are abusing their power so they do what? Nothing. The only route for someone to challenge that I'm aware of this is possibly through the courts somehow? Don't know enough about it to know what is possible, but even I know it's going to cost a hell of a lot of money for someone to try.

[Lee H]

Corr... I think I might just become an MP if they get 24 grand a year just for a second home allowance as well as their big wage packet.

I mean how hard can it be sitting on my arse all day going "here, here" in a pompous manner and jeering the opposition every now and again ?

[Koolpc]

Saracen, you don't post many 'small' replies do you!! lol

MP's shouldn't be allowed to vote on how much they get etc. What a bloody cheek!!

[Blitzen]

As much as i disagree with the fact that state employees (Members of Parliament) can vote as to whether or not they get a payrise AND how much, there is no denying that most people would do EXACTLY the same thing in their position.

Also..............we have heard how poor Labour have been for the last X amount of months/years......well, it was members from all the parties that decided to take this cash off the taxpayer, and not just Herr Brown and his oompah loompahs.

Labour/Tory/Liberal/Democrat = All the same. (well almost......Liberals have aching arses......all the 'sitting on fences' does that to a person)

[Saracen]

Saracen, you don't post many 'small' replies do you!! lol

Nope.

[yamangman]

But just to what extent do the electorate actually care? What was the turnout at the last general election. What percentage of that would it be safe to assume sit up and take notice of this kind of behaviour?

I assume very few.

That gets my goat as much as Saracen's views on pergolas.