Much of the past week’s shock-horror-hullabaloo revelations about MPs' expenses has had to do with claims for mortgage interest payments, stamp duty, capital gains tax and other costs associated with owning houses, none of which would have arisen had these MPs chosen to rent, rather than buy, flats and houses in London and/or their constituencies.
It’s obviously perfectly reasonable to subsidise people whose job requires that they run two homes. But why is this interpreted by MPs and the civil servants who administer the expenses as meaning the purchase of second homes?
Presumably the answer is that, like so many other people in the UK, the MPs and civil servants are obsessed with owning homes rather than renting them. As such, they could be said to be thoroughly representative of the voters who elected them to parliament in the first place.
But – and this seems to be the biggest ‘but’ to have come out of the Telegraph revelations – it is surely totally unacceptable to use taxpayers’ money to underwrite property speculation and then allow the beneficiaries to pocket the profits.
There are at least three obvious ways of putting a stop to this:
1. Give MPs a flat-rate London allowance based on rental costs within a certain distance from Westminster.
2. Set up a Parliamentary property service that would buy properties for MPs to live in rent-free (and hold on to any profits made when the properties were sold).
3. Build a hall of residence in or near Westminster where MPs could live rent-free – made up of different sized flats catering for different family needs and providing a suitably professional standard of comfort (e.g. based on 4 star hotels or the quality of accommodation found in some of our top business schools).
Well, well, Wells!
On learning from yesterday's Telegraph revelations about parliamentary expenses that our Tory MP, David Heathcote-Amory had claimed £380 for horse manure, I wasn't sure whether to be pleased or annoyed.
Should I be pleased because the news can't do the chances of our Liberal Democrat candidate for the Wells constituency, Tessa Munt, any harm at all?
Or should I be annoyed because I reckon I could have found some local manure at a lower price - which would have would have been a better deal for him, a better deal for the taxpayer and a better deal for me, as it would have let me in on a slice of the action for myself.
Should I be pleased because the news can't do the chances of our Liberal Democrat candidate for the Wells constituency, Tessa Munt, any harm at all?
Or should I be annoyed because I reckon I could have found some local manure at a lower price - which would have would have been a better deal for him, a better deal for the taxpayer and a better deal for me, as it would have let me in on a slice of the action for myself.
A prime minister who openly refused to answer an interviewer’s questions
If you saw the recently posted clips of Clement Attlee and Edward Heath, you might enjoy another gem from my collection of memorable TV interviews from the past.
This time, it’s sunny Jim Callaghan in full combat mode, repeatedly refusing to answer questions about Roy Jenkins.
Although he may have succeeded in putting Robin Day in his place, whether or not it did the then prime minister's reputation any good is quite another matter.
However, compared with the way Gordon Brown behaves in interviews (see yesterday’s post), there’s something vaguely refreshing to see a politician being as open as this about his unwillingness to answer the questions put to him:
This time, it’s sunny Jim Callaghan in full combat mode, repeatedly refusing to answer questions about Roy Jenkins.
Although he may have succeeded in putting Robin Day in his place, whether or not it did the then prime minister's reputation any good is quite another matter.
However, compared with the way Gordon Brown behaves in interviews (see yesterday’s post), there’s something vaguely refreshing to see a politician being as open as this about his unwillingness to answer the questions put to him:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)