Should MPs face the same caps as those on housing benefit?
“Are we happy to go on paying £30,000, £40,000, £50,000?”, asked David Cameron in PMQs. “Are constituents working hard to give benefits so people can live in homes that they can only dream of? I don’t think that is fair.”
This is the refrain of the government when asked about cutting housing benefits to the unemployed, and capping claims at £250 per week for a one bedroom flat or £400 per week for a four bedroom house. The fear of those opposing this proposal is that in certain expensive places such as London or Bath people currently getting more than that amount will be forced to uproot their families and move out to cheaper areas.
Rich London boroughs could be “cleansed” of the poor, they claim, evoking the war term most used in the former Yugoslavia of “ethnic cleansing”. Conservatives find the terminology offensive but many do not think the idea of being forced to move totally unreasonable, as they say this is what happens to people not on benefits when their incomes fall below their living costs. Of course very few people get the kind of amounts the Prime Minister quotes, but if any do at all it serves his purposes.
A friend of mine – we’ll call her Sam to spare blushes and save friendship – has a very nice small flat in a posh and trendy part of London. Ideal for a single person, it would probably be a squeeze for two but is right in the heart of a great place to live and close to the London Underground.
Most young people can only dream, as David Cameron might put it, of living in such a place. Sam’s hard-working and relatively affluent parents helped buy it a few years ago, and when she earned enough herself to move on to a slightly bigger place she decided to rent it out.
She now has a young woman living in it – despite the ludicrous London rent – who seems the perfect kind of tenant in many ways. She’s out at work most of the time, and looks after the place well. And little wonder, that despite these harsh times in the economy, she still pays the rent on time. Because the delightful tenant is claiming housing benefit.
So, over the occasional drink, Sam and I will laugh (her heartily, me resentfully) about the fact that my hard-earned tax goes, via a roundabout route, into Sam’s bank account while a perfectly decent and hard-working young woman gets to live in a cool flat in London she could never afford on her own salary. And Sam’s flat goes on appreciating in value, while the mortgage is paid for by the taxpayer feeding both house price rises and high rents. In an age obsessed by what is “fair” where does this sit in the spectrum?
For that matter is it ‘fair’ that housing benefit should be capped at £250 for a one bedroom flat in London when MPs can claim vastly more than that for their second home allowance? Under the new rules (although they are constantly being reviewed it seems) a single MP will be able to claim about £385 a week for a one bedroom flat.
Is it “fair” that normal people are expected to move to areas they can afford and travel in to work but MPs are not? Should we perhaps expect MPs under 35 years old to share London living arrangements, in the same way housing benefit claimants will be under the proposals?
Is it “fair” that lots of members of the Cabinet have not only claimed expenses to pay their mortgages on fast-appreciating assets but furniture to put in them too? In case you were wondering David Cameron claimed more than £1700 per month in mortgage interest for two years, and more than £82000 for his second home over four years. And for that matter is it “fair” that, while most people pay their own travel costs, MPs get the taxpayer to provide for theirs?
The MPs’ expenses scandal already seems like a dim and distant memory for many people, and MPs on all sides do not want it to come back to haunt them. But if the government wants to take on the idea of what people can expect the state to provide, it is probably only a matter of time before somebody points the spotlight on the people making the rules for the rest of us again, and asks: “Why should they get any more than us?”
There are 48 comments on this post
It’s clearly unfair that tax-payers money is essentially finding its way into the buy-to-let operators and inflating both capital and rental costs.
The other obvious thing is that it clearly disadvantages those who are not in receipt of housing benefits and who have to pay the rents inflated by state subsidy.
Virtually everybody I know in the private housing market has had to compromise something about where they live to fit in with budgets. it is not a good use of taxpayer’s money to add further to asset and housing price inflation in this way.
There has to be a clear distinction made between the low earners,the genuine unemployed who have lost their jobs and are looking for work and the benefit scroungers who continue to claim with no intention of ever working.Until we do this the argument will just go round in circles.
I agree, Pete. But here’s the reality – over the past twelve months I’ve spent at least 25 hours per week, and one third of the benefits I receive (£62 per week) looking for work. And every single written communication from DWP, and system that they insist will “help”, addresses me as if I am feckless and workshy, and will do nothing unless coerced. As far as the system is concerned, unemployed = feckless, and most recruiters seem to have picked up the message.
Paul, this demonstrates my point perfectly. If you do not differentiate between peoples individual circumstances they will feel marginalised and worthless as you appear to reflect. The government appear unwilling to focus on the ever growing group of citizens who remain on benefits and have little or no intention of coming off them. It is easier to use a broad brush stroke of the “unemployed” but this is inaccurate and unfair. It is the benefit scroungers that we need to focus on. The savings can be re-directed to job creation schemes and ensuring that the persons in most need are catered for.
Because they work rather a lot harder?
Who? MPs? Dont make me laugh, they got longer holidays than school kids and get paid £60K+ and get us to pay their rent into the bargain? Remind me again just who do MPs work harder than? Remember most people on housing benefit have full time jobs (and not ones for just 35 weeks a year).
The delightful tenant is out at work most of the time AND claiming housing benefit? How on earth does that work? I think I may be missing out on something here…..
You don’t have to be out of work to claim housing, it’s worked out on household income, hours worked by the occupants, number of children and local rates of rent.
Also remembering that where the median rent is high, the Local Housing Allowance will be higher. Which is fairly reasonable, if for some reason you are working and can’t pay rent, you should be able to claim housing benefit, it’s what it’s there for. It helps many many people in work, often in very useful but low-paid public and charity sector jobs, or who can only work part time due to sickness/disability or childcare arrangements.
What they do is add up your income, then take away your rent, and see if what left is less than your personal allowance (what you need to live on, determined by age, children, disability et cetera), and then top up the bit in between.
Plenty of people on benefits don’t get all their rent paid by Housing Benefit, and plenty of people working get some of it paid that way.
As soon as I heard Cameron banging on about no more than £20k pa being fair, I went and checked his expenses claims.
In a four-year period, the multi-millionaire Cameron (with a multi-millionaire wife) claimed slightly more than that for the interest on his mortgage on his SECOND home. Add to that all the other perks MPs enjoy and he seems to have a version of fairness that rings somewhat hollow.
The expenses thing is far from over.On the day Osborne announced his swingeing cuts, he was shown climbing into a chauffeur driven car at his luxury London home, and then back in the limo for the 200 yard trip from Downing St to Parliament. All paid for by the tax payer.
Mere mortals aren’t allowed to claim petrol from home to work – why can’t Osborne take a taxi and pay for it himself? And wouldn’t a mini-cab service be cheaper between Downing St and HoC, even a luxury one, than a whole fleet of chauffeur driven cars?
Ordinary MPs will continue to live better than most of their constituencies thanks to tax funded salary, expenses, perks and pensions, while endlessly telling the rest of us we should tighten our belts. And the House of Lords can now claim £300 a day (no receipts needed) just for turning up. All they have to do is clock in and spend the time in the bars or enjohying the subsidised meals.
But to be fair, Cameron promised there would be new private sector jobs created and he’s made a start – there is going to be plenty of work for removal companies in the next few years. I just hope the poor sods who have to move can afford to hire them.
This assualt on Cameron is unbalanced: the faces in the trough come from across the entire political spectrum. In the final analysis, there were rather more labour crooks. To be fair, I reckon, because at the time they had more MPs.
The faces in the trough may have been across the spectrum but it is the Cameron and Osborne show implementing the ill-thought out and hypocritcal cuts. They will destroy the lives of many hard-working families just to convince daily mail readers that they have rid us of all those scroungers that have 15 kids and live in luxury at our expense. I’d like to see us rid of the 650 scroungers in westminster, each of whom costs us hundreds of thousands of pounds per annum whilst on their ideological ego trip.
“And Sam’s flat goes on appreciating in value, while the mortgage is paid for by the taxpayer feeding both house price rises and high rents.”
Easy fix for that, put a cap on rents.
can you call sam something else ,as dave camron has a wife called sam ,thank you
The cap level is at this stage a policy. There is no defined strategy and therefore no strategic plan or tactical plan and if there is no plan then there is nothing. This is a social experiment that has not been thought through at all. It is doomed to failure as it stands.
Don’t waste time even discussing it like its already a ‘done deal’. Spend time on exposing the coalition government for what it is. Don’t get diverted away from the main issue. So, start to interogate the politicians and drill down into what plans/logostics they have.
At the same time Cameron should put in place a vehicle so that i (the voter, a memmber of the ‘big society’, and ‘in it toegther’ with the politicians) can have my say.
So pass on my ‘thoughts of Citizen Smith’ to Cameron/Clegg and Milliband on how the voter should get some influencein the direction we are going. If we are ‘all in this together’ lets get the ‘big society’ together on a monthly basis at a ‘town hall’ public meeting so that the elected MP can tell us where we are in the policy making and we can provide our feedback and express our views.
As i have said before, the voter has no influence whatsoever after an election vote has been cast until the next election unless i take direct action and/or revolt. A ‘one to one’ MP surgery visit has no influence, my emails/letters have no influence as evidenced recently by me and demonstrations are useless (witness the opposition to the invasion of Iraq). So lets have a vehicle where i/we ‘the big society’ can be in it together.
The alternative of course is the other extreme of direct action/street action as witnessed in France over the previous weeks, but then the masses are so dumbed down these days that this is unlikely.
I imagine your emails and letters probably have little impact because they appear to be from a crackpot. Imagine politicians having the cheek not to hang off your every word and take up all your suggestions!
Krishnan hasn’t missed the main issue – he’s actually stated it plainly: housing benefit is inflating rents, and eliminating risk for landlords, tax money – our money – is being indirectly paid to private investors and that is clearly inappropriate. It is fair to attack how the Coalition have chosen to deal with this – through a cap in benefit – perhaps you’d care to tell us how you’d deal with it?
Citizen Smith’s post didn’t read like that of a crackpot to me. Town hall meetings, airing of views, actually creating the ‘big society’ rather than just blowing hot air about it all sound like solid, sensible ideas that should be happening in a proper democracy.
Perhaps those who like to talk about big society aren’t so keen when that society doesn’t agree with their ideals.
I wish more people watched channel 4 news. Its the only channel where we seem to get debate rather than “opinion.”
I think this recession will do Britain some good in that people will start to take more notice of Politics and hopefully become more aware of the rotten system we call “Democracy”
Its sometimes incredibly difficult to unravel the governments reasoning behind seemingly bizzare decisions. Unfortunately we are not privvy to every thing but in my opinion thats what needs to change.
A completely transparent government, accountable and working for humanities progression rather than petty squabbles between power and wealth struggles.
Of course this decision is just plain unfair and will have a devastating impact on hard working people who are the victim of non other than ludicrous house prices which is a result of the governments policies over the years.
Short term answers for long term problems seems to be Britains speciality.
If we were really “all in this together”, our MPs would’ve taken a voluntary pay cut and enacted measures such as those listed above by Saltaire Sam. I really can’t see how these cuts will affect Osborne, Clegg, and Cameron.
@Saltaire Sam
To be fair, the IR does allow ordinary people to claim travel for work away from their normal place of work (and have their accommodation paid for if they have to be based away from their normal place of work). Arguably, for a constituancy MP their normal place of work is where they were elected.
However, I’d certainly agree it’s about time the rules were the same for everybody. We have to provide receipts for everything.
I think it’s also worth noting that it is that it is always possible to justify thse things by comparing with the extremes; bankers, politicians, multi-millionairs and so on. What matters for the great majority is that they are treated fairly with the vast majority of their fellow citizens who do not, in general, benefit from any sort of largesse, and systems which indirectly put money in the pockets of those already comfortably off (which this does) and increases the living expenses of others (which this also does) is not, I feel, appropriate.
As for the Lords and their allowances, then I detest the whole set-up with the huge power of patronage it gives to politicians. We also witness some behaviour with regard to expenses which would not only lead to instant dismissal, but might even attract prosecution.
As it is, we’ve just had three peers suspended for actions which I find quite unbelievable. What’s worse, the Lords somehow seem to think that they have been subject to exemplerary punishment by being suspended for periods of up to 18 months.
But none of these examples, absolutely none, justifies and unfair system. It’s the equivalent of a child justifying his own misbehaviour by pointing at others that have gone unpunished. All these things have top be dealt on their own merits.
1. If I was “Sam’s” tenant & find I can’t afford the flat, so I move to Croydon or Bromley. I get somewhere to live at below the HB cap. I now have to travel to work & in order to qualify for HB my income was below a certain level or I had offspring. My costs are higher & (if I have kids I have to make arrangements for them to cover my increased travelling time, at least). It seems to me that there is a risk here of pushing people out of work & making it more difficult for employers in central London to get workers at lower pay levels.
But i see no reason why MPs shouldn’t be subject to the same rules if Parliament passes the changes to HB. The reason why people coming back to Cameron’s wealth is because (a) none of these changes will affect him and (b) he’s absolutely no experience of people struggling to make a living in an expensive city . All he does is build on people’s anger at the excessive cases publicised by the media. In his obsession with cutting the size of the public sector he has, yet again, failed to consider the social & economic consequences of his hasty & ill-considered actions
Well said – hit the nail on the head.
Rather than rushing to pander to what Cameron assumes to be the popular vote, he should have spent a bit more time researching, planning and understanding the practicalities and impact of his policies which have clearly been made on the hoof each morning after his coffee and daily mail.
dont use daves wife as an example
I think their Ivory Tower ill thought out ideas are alarming and very unfair compared to their own lifestyles.
In the first instance there should be a very clear distinction made between cheats,those who who know how to work the system and the majority of decent people who may have to claim benefits.
By highlighting the extreme and the minority within the system to attract support from the public they are bringing in some unfair changes that will effect many.
I know lots of people who work very hard for the too low mininum wage, with jobs scarce and more demands from employers it’s difficult to find a second job to top up pay. Many agencies will not offer a full weeks work.
With the coming job losses and fingers crossed
approach to private sector jobs many people will find themselves in need of these benefits.
It seems that extreme abuse of the system, which needs to be tackled, is going to be at the expense of the genuine needy, out of work and sick.
Lots of people have paid into the system over the years, why should they not claim.
Many people of my age group will remember the Thatcher years. I lost my home, business and aspirations, as did many.
There is a big difference between cutting back on a holiday or a loaf of bread to feed the family. This is the stark reality of low pay or benefits.
I think a mix of affordable housing anywhere is essential and that greedy private landlords who abuse the system should be stopped.
Cities will always require a mixed work force. Shift workers, cleaners, emergency services etc.
Many people in London who have mortgages may soon have need for help if their jobs go,along with the rest of the country.
The other aspect of this is the moving elsewhere to jobs. When manufacturing was killed off in this country a lot people did relocate to new areas of work, many regeneration projects attracted wealth to new areas. Now lots of them are gone. How often are people expected to move?
The only people who will not be faced with some very tough personal choices during these times are the very rich and this government.
Has anyone checked if there plenty of empty houses/flats at rents within the new caps available for people to move into?
And, under the capitalist law of supply and demand, doesn’t that mean those rents will go up while presumably the inner-London rents will come down because people can’t afford to rent them any more.
As Lionel Bart so aptly put it: I think I’d better think it out again.
As i said (see earlier post), there is no plan/logistics, nothing has been thought through so ‘think it out again’ should be ‘think it through and then make a recommendation to abandon or create a plan’
The easy answer is start with a blank piece of paper.I have someone out of work in London
I wish to encourage them to get a job,not be reliant on government handouts and not believe he is better off with the status quo.
At this stage assume children are not involved.
If they are living in London , they already have accomodation.How are they affording that?
The unemployed is getting it paid by the state,so was he there before he was out of work?Has he ever worked.Has the rent been subjected to government tests as to fairness?If not why not?Is it at a level that could be afforded by someone in work and on low pay?If not why is it being paid?Was the unemployed person paying that rent when in work?
Having a template of questions that need to be answered.Someone in work loses his job and claims job seekers allowance.At that stage his rent should be paid for say six months at the level he was paying when in employment ,or his mortgage interest paid for the same period.At the end of six months the rent/mortgage allowance should fall to a capped level,that low paid working people in the same area could afford. If the rent/mortgage allowance is higher than the capped level,then there are two options.Seek a rent reduction or move.If the landlord refuses to lower the rent , he will lose out.
I am afraid no refugee should be housed in an area of high rents or a rent above the cap.
As for politicians , as they are paid by government ,they too should be subject to the cap , on second accomodation,and if they are not London MPs their second accomodation can only be London .No fiddling allowed full stop.They should be allowed to claim travel expenses on receipt,but not living expenses.
Not even a little bit of fiddling.Oh go on ?
I find this all horrific. On one level the government are talking about forcing people to move where the work is and then they are saying property there is far too desirable for someone seeking employment, long-term unemployed, disabled, or pensioned. Train and tube fares are being hiked by 30-40 percent over the next three years when 1-9 zone travel cards in London costs £275 pounds per month already, i.e. in excess of what government say in theory is a single persons rent for a week. £275per month is the difference between being able to accept and job and not; eat or starve. So all this seems contradictory.
Another Tory government looking after the well to do. Just like the previous Tory Government; who sold off all the affordable housing in the ‘Right To Buy’ which the ‘Milk Snatcher’ set up. Now that same political party are whinging that now what is left should be reserved for the wealthy, who have incidentally bought on a number of RTB properties over the years as it is.
It is a very frightening world these days. As a disabled person, I live in absolute fear of losing my right to subsidised housing because I never know when and for how long I will need it.
Or being forced to move from an area where I feel safe and know my routines and have my medical needs met, because I am not worth it! Forced to move to a ghetto of the underprivileged or as the government would paint it; the lazy, addicted, disabled, elderly, non-productive underclass.
If means testing is what is necessary, then I say lets means test the MP’s too, and if they can afford their outgoings, let them pay out of their own pockets. After-all aren’t they providing a service to Queen and Country, or is that only if we pay them disproportionately for it.
I suspect there are human rights issues lurking in this shake up of housing benefits. I also wonder who will be administrating the ‘special dispensation committee’, what the criteria are and whether it is just another opportunity for those that will to commit fraud. Will decisions on who might qualify hand over yet more power to the ridiculously over-stretched and under-qualified Local Authorities?
Saving money and putting the economy back on track does not equate as lacking humanity. Dividing by poverty and creating underclass ghettos, presumably which would be better policed and equally better serviced by health and social care.
This is the beginning of something unpleasant, and yes Krish, Cleansing; not Ethnic Cleansing, but Financial Cleansing….which no doubt will clean up a few other difficult embarrassments as a bonus to those who would enforce it.
I predict Demonstrations along the lines Of those held in 1990 against Poll Tax, or as the Kaiser Chiefs put it….’ I Predict a Riot’.
As I understand it, these measures do not apply to the registered disabled, but I could be wrong.
As far as job expenses go (which is presumably the justification for MP’s expenses), then these ought to be on the same basis as anybody else in the workforce. For instance, I have to pay my own travel to my normal place of work, but if I have to work away then I get valid expenses refunded. MPs ought to be on the same basis.
Benefits are not the same thing at all as expenses. The Inland Revenue rules are meant to be that only expenses incurred validly for performing a job away from the normal place of work can be refunded. It would help not to confuse the two, or to confuse the abuse of an expenses system with its proper use.
I would think that for the purposes of MPs then the normal place of work would be considered to be the constituency, which is where I would expect the MP to spend most of his/her working time.
That is my point Steve, there has been little to no clarity on who and how these ‘safety net’ measures will be implemented. Almost as though the Government were purposefully instigating mass panic.I have seen so much nepotism in Local Authorities lately that it seems like politically sensitive war.
I spent 10 years arguing with the local authority; proving I was disabled because mine is a hidden disability, and it was a long and intensely painful struggle. People only see what they choose to see, and then only as they wish to perceive it.
In such times as we find ourselves there are thousands of genuine job-seekers and people are losing jobs all the time. What about those who are genuinely in between jobs.
Red tape involved in being a member of parliament could and should be cut if we are tightening our belt as a nation. Our MP’s do not need luxury vehicles, they only need to get from A-B; on the train and not first class either, unless they want to supplement it themselves.
If they want to live in luxury, let them supplement the difference, otherwise the limits they set for Housing benefits should apply equally to them. If they want to travel by hired car, let them get a quote from the local cab firm and if they choose to hire a limousine, let them pay the difference: those things are lifestyle choices.
All too many double standards for my liking: ‘All very fair as long as I’m all right Jack!’
There is no such things as ‘registered disabled’ and has not been for a long time. Some LAs keep up a register, but many do not.
And yes, the HB benefit LHA rate caps and reduction from median to 30th percentile average rent would apply to people with disabilities as well.
Just a thought, if thousands of people will be forced to move out of the more expensive parts of London won’t there be an excess of property and therefore to fill it the rents will have to be lowered so they can all move back!
Cap rents and raise the minimum wage.
who pays??
“Who pays?”
At the risk of becoming a complete bore, the people who currently benefit, Adrian.
In the case of Housing Benefit, that would be those who took on mortgages for BTL property, inflating the cost of property for first time buyers, and who now have the rents on their investments underwritten by the welfare system. In an extra irony, following the bank bailout, the taxpayer currently “owns” quite a lot of that lending.
In the case of the minimum wage, it would be those “successful” businesses whose profits rely on being able to pay wages which don’t actually allow their workers to earn a living, and which are subsidised through tax credits and other in-work benefits.
Those who would pay would, then, include many who ritually claim that “the state does nothing for them”.
It’s a point of principle. Travellers, gypsies call them what you will are told to leave their homes. This is quite right when they are liviny in areas which do not have council approval. But tenants living in rent free homes (of any cost) were told by Labour to find suitable accomodation and we’ll pay for it. Whether you like that or not, that is the position. Boris is quite right about ethnic cleansing. I’m beginning not to like Cameron and his cronies
Its a point of principle that Labour would just pay what was asked with no controls whatsoever.They came to power 13 years ago with a mandate to sort the benefits system .When Frank Fields came up with ideas they ran scared , hence the mess to day.To exacerbate it they tried to bring about multiculturism by a large influx of immigrants ,and no idea where to house them .Boris is totally wrong and you should be thankful someone has the guts to try and put things right.
I wholeheartedly agree with putting a similar cap level on mp’s expenses. As others have pointed out there are expenses system in place at most workplaces where away from office work is involved but this does not extend to houses for ducks or cleaning moats or £300 per roll wallpaper for the utility room larger than the average living room.
A degree of realism is needed from MPs. I have it on authority it’s not as hard a job as is made out in defence of expenses and even MPs themselves admit to enjoying the excessive level of perks and benefits they receive((post scandal may I add)
Perhaps being public sector workers they should experience similar cuts in their expenses budget to the departments they’re currently slashing.
The salary and allowances paid to MPs are recompense for work that they are supposed to be doing for the public (though obviously you can argue whether this or that part of the salary package is justified). The money paid to “Sam’s” tenant is not recompense for any service she is providing the public, it is simply given to her because her income is less than her expenditure. So the comparison is frankly nonsense.
The housing benefit system is completely bent and desperately in need of reform.
I’d love to live in Camden, or even better, Soho. The fact is I can’t afford it. . . or could I? On the present rules I can move into a flat I can’t afford, then claim housing benefit. Small wonder so many people do.
Calling a housing policy that reflects the truth of the use of the benefit system ‘ethnic cleansing’ is scaremongering.
The coalition policy is aimed at tackling this blatant abuse where – as Krishnan beatifully illustrates – the tax payer is funding fashionable lifestyles in up-market central locations, and underwriting risk for greedy landlords. Its wrong.
Dear Tim Wright
It is fashionable to believe that people at the lowest rank of society are on paid vacation, that they have the equivalent of an opulent life style and that they enjoy the privileges set aside for royals but without any of the duties. This fantasy is promoted by media serving the interests of its wealthy owners. Unfortunately for hard working tax payers none of these fantasies help build a more effective and prosperous nation but they do serve their purpose which is to distract those in the middle of the income bracket from tackling the reasons why they have to work longer hours then anybody else in Europe, why their children have to live at home past thirty and why the equity gained from rising house prices is lost because you have to mortgage your kids houses with it so that they can start their own families and give you grandchildren.
When the cost of housing is adjusted to eat up a larger percentage of your take home pay and you are lead to believe that this will benefit you in the long run because the people coming up behind you on the property ladder will make up for it you are participating in a pyramid scheme.
Despite what politicians and the financial media is telling you, it is not true that there where no economists warning about the consequences of the artificially created housing bubble, you where just not told about it on the channel 4 news or any other news outlets for that matter. They where egging you on for their own ends, those property programs sold a lot of ads and are dead cheap to make.
The housing fraud you are suffering from was perpetrated by the super rich who have stashed away their gains and are sitting pretty despite the worst recession on living memory. The adjustment that is still not completed will hurt for a long time to come, property prices will not “recover” (take some time to examine language and the assumptions you buy into when you repeat their wordings).
The proportion of the nations wealth that the super rich gained was annexed from people like you Tim and when they now tell you that you are loosing out because of the poor you’d bee a fool to fall for it.
polititians have lost the trust of the electorate. The only way they can regain real legitimacy is to understand that they themselves must live by the conditions they set for others. Thus If there is a natonal minimum wage that M.P.’s Say is a living wage, then that is what M.P.’s should be paid. Travel and accommodation expenses should be by public transport at the lowest rate and accommodation should not be in Second homes, but in the least expensive accommodation avalable. They are thre to work, and the accommodation should really only be for sleepng in. Until these people understand that they are there to carry out the electorates wishes and not their own dogma we cannot call ourselves a democracy. A system neeeds to be devised whereby the taxpayer decides where tax revenues will be spent and the polititians role is to implement the electoates wishes This could be achieved by people alocating percentages of their total tax bill to a list of the services government would like to provide. I bet M.P.’s salaries and expenses would come far down the list
I agree…….when evrything is rosey in the garden it is easy for the politicians to brush over their misdemeanors. Much harder now the axe has fallen on millions of people and issues such as the expense claims come back into focus. I was shocked to here the daily claim allownace for the Lords (@£300 per day). This type of allowance makes the justification of housing allowance and child benefit cuts extremely hard for Cameron to balance.
We are all in this together! Er… if we’re at the bottom of the pile. It seems, as per usual, the top of the pile shall remain cosily removed and unaffected. The MP’s, and their very close mates – the Bankers and big co-operative business (who really run the country!) – shall carry on regardless. Expenses shall be claimed (all within the law, naturally) and profits shall continue – along with the big, fat bonuses – to grow, enormously!
Am I a cynic? Oh yes. 100%.
When I actually see ‘changes/cuts’ from the TOP down, I might once again believe in fairness! Until then, please give me a rest from all the empty, hollow words! It’s just another pantomime by another crowd of self-serving egomaniacs who, thanks to our weak, ineffectual media, have now become ‘celebrities’! Give me a break. This once great nation has sunk well below the waterline.
It does some a little strange, to say the least, that bankers’ bonuses (based on the profits they deliver to their investors) are at pre-crash levels. As are the raises paid to board level executives in FTSE100 (ie very large) companies, again reflecting current profitability. Smaller businesses do seem to be having a much tougher time. But it does look as if the big beasts are continuing to extract just as much from the “broken” economy as they did when it was “successful”. Whoever is paying to clean up the mess, it doesn’t seem to be them.
the cabinet of millionaires (literally) is busy claiming second homes and expenses whilst on very large salaries with very nice holidays and often second jobs that pay them absurd amounts for one or two speeches a year.
this same cabinet is busy taking an axe to services and welfare that the poorest in society rely on
were all in this together?
like hell we are…
unless of course WE means the cabinet and THIS means a savings plan in a tax haven…
Seems to me that Cameron’s recent little chat with Rupert Murdoch is paying dividends – quite literally, I assume.
The finger now seems firmly pointed at the “undeserving poor” for getting us into this mess with their expensive, central London luxury homes.
Those in the banking sector must be laughing all the way to the… err… bank.