At It Again

[Esmond Million's Bung]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-minister-claims-6000-hotel-2871089

[Barrs Court Red]

Non story.

[kevinmabbuttshair]

I'd do the same thing.

Pretend left wing rag

[marshy]

Plenty of others at this game, if not worse. E.g. 'Sir' Nick Harvey, Lib Dem, owning a property in London but letting it out to help pay the mortgage while at the same time claiming rental expenses from the taxpayer. Not against the rules of course, but morally highly dubious. Like or loathe their politics the Telegraph did a fantastic job exposing the expenses scandal on both sides of the house.

 

How difficult would it be I wonder for investigative journalists to expose people on the fiddle, if such a thing were ever to take place, within the distant and unaccountable confines of the EU in Brussels? 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Plenty of others at this game, if not worse. E.g. 'Sir' Nick Harvey, Lib Dem, owning a property in London but letting it out to help pay the mortgage while at the same time claiming rental expenses from the taxpayer. Not against the rules of course, but morally highly dubious. Like or loathe their politics the Telegraph did a fantastic job exposing the expenses scandal on both sides of the house.

 

How difficult would it be I wonder for investigative journalists to expose people on the fiddle, if such a thing were ever to take place, within the distant and unaccountable confines of the EU in Brussels? 

 

Sadly nothing learned though from our elected moral compasses.

 

 

[Nibor]

So presumably he has a son or daughter living in the flat and the "50 minute train ride" probably translates into a two hour commute. It's hardly getting a moat cleared.

[Fiale]

[chipdawg]

So presumably he has a son or daughter living in the flat and the "50 minute train ride" probably translates into a two hour commute. It's hardly getting a moat cleared.

I agree with you on the train ride and as parliament often sits into the evening it might not even be an option. However, something doesn't quite sit right about the taxpayer funding hotel rooms in order for another member of his family to live rent free a short walk away. Plus, Lansley has previous for expenses fiddling

Personally, I think that if an MP owns a property in Central London they shouldn't be able to claim for hotel rooms in the capital and I don't think that's particularly unreasonable

[Nibor]

I agree with you on the train ride and as parliament often sits into the evening it might not even be an option. However, something doesn't quite sit right about the taxpayer funding hotel rooms in order for another member of his family to live rent free a short walk away. Plus, Lansley has previous for expenses fiddling

Personally, I think that if an MP owns a property in Central London they shouldn't be able to claim for hotel rooms in the capital and I don't think that's particularly unreasonable

If he genuinely lives outside London I don't think he should be penalised for helping one of his kids myself.

When you have a job split over two locations, you get paid expenses at one of them if the travel time is too long to commute. I think over an hour is too long for a regular commute myself. It's fairly normal I think.

[chipdawg]

If he genuinely lives outside London I don't think he should be penalised for helping one of his kids myself.

When you have a job split over two locations, you get paid expenses at one of them if the travel time is too long to commute. I think over an hour is too long for a regular commute myself. It's fairly normal I think.

No, but neither should the taxpayer be facilitating him helping out his kids. I totally agree that the treasury should fund second homes for MPs; by definition it is a job where you have to consistently be in two places at once. But we shouldn't be funding his kids (which is speculation- it could be his mistress, boyfriend, S&M dominatrix for all we know) existence. If you declare a second home in London, regardless of whether you're currently claiming mortgage payments back (which Mr Lansley has done in the past), you shouldn't then be able to claim for hotel rooms as to me that seems the very definition of an unnessecary expense

[Nibor]

No, but neither should the taxpayer be facilitating him helping out his kids.

In my view we're not. We're facilitating him working in two locations. What he does with his own money is his business - if he chooses to buy property that's up to him. If the taxpayer were funding the flat of course this would be wrong.

To be clear, if I owned a flat in London and rented it out and I were employed by somebody that wanted me to work there, I would be staying in a hotel and claiming expenses.

I think this is perfectly normal.

[marshy]

If he genuinely lives outside London I don't think he should be penalised for helping one of his kids myself.

When you have a job split over two locations, you get paid expenses at one of them if the travel time is too long to commute. I think over an hour is too long for a regular commute myself. It's fairly normal I think.

 

His flat is one mile from Parliament. He could walk it, he could jog it, he could even cycle it if he were prepared to run the gauntlet of dodgy police officers at the gate. Besides late night sittings are nowhere near as common as they once were so public transport is also an option. What MPs should not be expecting is for the taxpayer to pay their expenses for flat rental or hotels while, at the same time, they rent out or loan the use of a  property they own in the capital.

[chipdawg]

In my view we're not. We're facilitating him working in two locations. What he does with his own money is his business - if he chooses to buy property that's up to him. If the taxpayer were funding the flat of course this would be wrong.

To be clear, if I owned a flat in London and rented it out and I were employed by somebody that wanted me to work there, I would be staying in a hotel and claiming expenses.

I think this is perfectly normal.

Well, yes; I do take your point, but he doesn't rent it out, he lets someone live there for free while the tax payer funds his hotel bill. In your scenario, it would surely be worse for him to be gaining financially from the rent of his flat?! There could be an argument that if he's financially responsible for whoever currently lives in the flat, he is gaining financially by switching that burden onto the taxpayer

I guess it all depends on your viewpoint and how much you trust politicians to be something fair and just rather than self-serving

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Well, yes; I do take your point, but he doesn't rent it out, he lets someone live there for free while the tax payer funds his hotel bill. In your scenario, it would surely be worse for him to be gaining financially from the rent of his flat?! There could be an argument that if he's financially responsible for whoever currently lives in the flat, he is gaining financially by switching that burden onto the taxpayer

I guess it all depends on your viewpoint and how much you trust politicians to be something fair and just rather than self-serving

 

it is another wealthy MP using the system to the benefit of their own, basically the tax payer is indirectly funding his son/daughter living in a nice central London flat.

 

 

[chipdawg]

it is another wealthy MP using the system to the benefit of their own, basically the tax payer is indirectly funding his son/daughter living in a nice central London flat.

Exactly as I see it

[marshy]

Exactly as I see it

 

Me too.

[Nibor]

His flat is one mile from Parliament. He could walk it, he could jog it, he could even cycle it if he were prepared to run the gauntlet of dodgy police officers at the gate. Besides late night sittings are nowhere near as common as they once were so public transport is also an option. What MPs should not be expecting is for the taxpayer to pay their expenses for flat rental or hotels while, at the same time, they rent out or loan the use of a  property they own in the capital.

Rent out - I agree. Let a family member use? No, that's singling MPs out for something that no other walk of life would be IMO. It's not his employer's business what property he owns, simple as that. I'm only arguing that they should have the same treatment as you or I, I'd come down on fraud like a tonne of bricks.

[chipdawg]

[Nibor]