SarahBell Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...s-expenses.html Mr Hopkins, a lifelong socialist, added: “The system is ridiculous. I have signed an Early Day Motion calling for the nationalisation of all second homes. If the state owned flats and rented them out to MPs, there wouldn’t be any problems about second home allowances or switching homes from one place to another and you wouldn’t have these problems with capital gains tax.” All second homes? Or just MPs? I still think putting bunk beds in the cellar at the HoP would be a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogs Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...s-expenses.htmlMr Hopkins, a lifelong socialist, added: “The system is ridiculous. I have signed an Early Day Motion calling for the nationalisation of all second homes. If the state owned flats and rented them out to MPs, there wouldn’t be any problems about second home allowances or switching homes from one place to another and you wouldn’t have these problems with capital gains tax.” All second homes? Or just MPs? I still think putting bunk beds in the cellar at the HoP would be a good idea. Sounds like a perfectly good idea to me. Some MP(ig)s have more than one second home that we've bought for them, hence 'all second homes'. Edited May 11, 2009 by Cogs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abharrisson Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 I don't know why they don't just treat MP's like other middle managers who work away from home a lot... in many cases the company will fund hotel costs, in Mp's cases its more likely to be the cost of a flat rental.... but you wouldn't find a company allowing you to rent a flat big enough for a family if you were a single MP... so I would say... let Mp's who want to buy a house buy it, but those who want "support" should rent... the MP should choose the flat , it should be within a pre-ordained budget, but it should be parliament that rents it for them ( ie is the leaseholder) to avaoid any sub-letting shinanegans..... no one whose constituency is within 2 hours of London ( by train) should be allowed the benefit and the HOC should ammend its rules so that any debates or votes stop at 7.30pm allowing everyone plenty of time to get home..... another probably cheaper variant of this would be for parliament to buy a block of flats but I susepct you'd get all sorts of security concerns...... add in a bit of flexibility regarding ad hoc hotel accomodation and that should all work..... it'd be controlled, and cheaper than what we have currently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 bl**dy h*ll I agree with a lifelong socialist - yeah I could never figure out why parliament don't just own a block of decent flats somewhere near parliament as grace and favour apartments for non-london MPS, decent standard, you know. Then if the MPs want to live somewhere else in London they can bleedin' well pay for it themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 I don't know why they don't just treat MP's like other middle managers who work away from home a lot... in many cases the company will fund hotel costs, in Mp's cases its more likely to be the cost of a flat rental.... but you wouldn't find a company allowing you to rent a flat big enough for a family if you were a single MP... so I would say... let Mp's who want to buy a house buy it, but those who want "support" should rent... the MP should choose the flat , it should be within a pre-ordained budget, but it should be parliament that rents it for them ( ie is the leaseholder) to avaoid any sub-letting shinanegans..... no one whose constituency is within 2 hours of London ( by train) should be allowed the benefit and the HOC should ammend its rules so that any debates or votes stop at 7.30pm allowing everyone plenty of time to get home..... another probably cheaper variant of this would be for parliament to buy a block of flats but I susepct you'd get all sorts of security concerns...... add in a bit of flexibility regarding ad hoc hotel accomodation and that should all work..... it'd be controlled, and cheaper than what we have currently. or that... seems eminently sensible, goodness knows there must be plenty of good serviced rental apartments out there serving this very executive market in London Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piece of paper Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 I don't know why they don't just treat MP's like other middle managers who work away from home a lot... in many cases the company will fund hotel costs, in Mp's cases its more likely to be the cost of a flat rental.... but you wouldn't find a company allowing you to rent a flat big enough for a family if you were a single MP... so I would say... let Mp's who want to buy a house buy it, but those who want "support" should rent... the MP should choose the flat , it should be within a pre-ordained budget, but it should be parliament that rents it for them ( ie is the leaseholder) to avaoid any sub-letting shinanegans..... no one whose constituency is within 2 hours of London ( by train) should be allowed the benefit and the HOC should ammend its rules so that any debates or votes stop at 7.30pm allowing everyone plenty of time to get home..... another probably cheaper variant of this would be for parliament to buy a block of flats but I susepct you'd get all sorts of security concerns...... add in a bit of flexibility regarding ad hoc hotel accomodation and that should all work..... it'd be controlled, and cheaper than what we have currently. With telephones and the internet, I don't see why they need to be in London anyway. Surely there is some easily secured disused force's base, or a closed mining pit village. p-o-p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted May 11, 2009 Author Share Posted May 11, 2009 With telephones and the internet, I don't see why they need to be in London anyway. Surely there is some easily secured disused force's base, or a closed mining pit village.p-o-p Quite - but thats why the foreign secretary was stamping his foot to get a private jet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbga9pgf Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Quite - but thats why the foreign secretary was stamping his foot to get a private jet They closed an army barracks right next to Westminster last year; with rennovation (probably at a cost of 1 years second home allowance) Our MPs could have had accommodation similar to the Officers' Mess system used by the military. Security would not have been a problem as the compound was fully secure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
getdoon_weebobby Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 if carlsberg made MPs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 They closed an army barracks right next to Westminster last year; with rennovation (probably at a cost of 1 years second home allowance) Our MPs could have had accommodation similar to the Officers' Mess system used by the military. Security would not have been a problem as the compound was fully secure. Yes, it seems mad that there isn't a state-owned block to house out-of London MPs. Would be far more secure as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piece of paper Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 They closed an army barracks right next to Westminster last year; with rennovation (probably at a cost of 1 years second home allowance) Our MPs could have had accommodation similar to the Officers' Mess system used by the military. Security would not have been a problem as the compound was fully secure. Hindsight, hindsight. They closed down Millbank prison not that long ago (Where Tate Britain is now). Well within the division bell. p-o-p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Bear Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...s-expenses.htmlMr Hopkins, a lifelong socialist, added: “The system is ridiculous. I have signed an Early Day Motion calling for the nationalisation of all second homes. If the state owned flats and rented them out to MPs, there wouldn’t be any problems about second home allowances or switching homes from one place to another and you wouldn’t have these problems with capital gains tax.” All second homes? Or just MPs? I still think putting bunk beds in the cellar at the HoP would be a good idea. Now how would they decide on the compensation? For some newer MPs they might be quite glad to get back what they paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogs Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Now how would they decide on the compensation? For some newer MPs they might be quite glad to get back what they paid. What compensation? For the tax payer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Yes, it seems mad that there isn't a state-owned block to house out-of London MPs. Would be far more secure as well. Holloway Prison is only a few miles away. The current inmates might object though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Holloway Prison is only a few miles away. The current inmates might object though. The scrubs is even closer..... as the crow flies. With the added benefit of the existing residents emptying their cell toilet buckets out of the windows as people cross the yard. Well they did 20 years ago when I was doing a bit of WORK in there... They slopped out then but I think nowadays all their rooms are en-suite..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50%deposit Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...s-expenses.htmlMr Hopkins, a lifelong socialist, added: “The system is ridiculous. I have signed an Early Day Motion calling for the nationalisation of all second homes. If the state owned flats and rented them out to MPs, there wouldn’t be any problems about second home allowances or switching homes from one place to another and you wouldn’t have these problems with capital gains tax.” All second homes? Or just MPs? I still think putting bunk beds in the cellar at the HoP would be a good idea. i think its just MP's. I was excited though, at least nationalisation of second homes would be a start. bunk beds in HoP? Luxury!!!! I was thinking hammocks, or maybe just straw on the floor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 It's Kevin Hopkins, MP for Luton. He's such a loser he hasn't even got a second home; he just takes the train into central London from Luton every day. Early Day Motion That this House believes the debate in the House on 3 July 2008 on the Members Estimate Committee report on pay, expenses and accommodation of hon. Members did not arrive at a solution that will gain public support for the way in which the Additional Costs Allowance is to be allocated in the future; notes that 415 hon. Members have an existing mortgage, the interest on which is paid by the Department of Resources and therefore from the public purse; and further believes the wholesale ownership of these properties is preferable but if this cannot be achieved then hon. Members should be allowed voluntarily to sign over their mortgages to the ownership of this House, and that an allocation officer should then be appointed to ensure that these nationally-owned properties are allocated on the basis of need. Mind you, it's only MPs' second homes. And this guy seems to sign every EDM going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 The homes wont be "seized" they will be purchased from the MPs at full market value. Watch and see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Great, so now we get to swallow the MPs losses too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timm Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Now how would they decide on the compensation? For some newer MPs they might be quite glad to get back what they paid. The homes wont be "seized" they will be purchased from the MPs at full market value.Watch and see. Great, so now we get to swallow the MPs losses too! Exactly. This is a disgrace. They never had to worry about the risks, they knew they could always force a greater fool to buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Bear Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Exactly.This is a disgrace. They never had to worry about the risks, they knew they could always force a greater fool to buy. We have to be careful what we wish for. It now seems that the proposal for an independent fees office was an attempt to remove the fees office from the freedom of information requirements. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle6265742.ece The Times revealed today that Sir Stuart Bell, Labour's representative on the committee that runs the Commons, wanted to push through a plan to privatise the "fees office" because he believed it would shield receipts from the Freedom of Information Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godless Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 If you ever need a good storage solution for barrels of gunpowder, I know just the right place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravity always wins Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...s-expenses.htmlMr Hopkins, a lifelong socialist, added: "The system is ridiculous. I have signed an Early Day Motion calling for the nationalisation of all second homes. If the state owned flats and rented them out to MPs, there wouldn't be any problems about second home allowances or switching homes from one place to another and you wouldn't have these problems with capital gains tax." All second homes? Or just MPs? I still think putting bunk beds in the cellar at the HoP would be a good idea. Smells like another bailout to me. Socialist promotes plan to use tax payers money to bail out his socialist buddies who played the capitalist game and lost. Hardly a noble plan is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Great, so now we get to swallow the MPs losses too! We arn't swallowing their losses, we are allowing they to realise their profits. There, that sounds much better doens't it...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 frack me, a sensible idea....now all they need is an office each at HP too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.