• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

MPs' Expenses

Yes, it does, but indirectly.

It of course influences who I think is doing a good job. That said, that's not a party specific judgement. If we were discussing a Labour, Tory, or other MPs I admire (and there are still a few from most parties), I'd view any similar actions in a similar light.
 
Yes, it does, but indirectly.

It of course influences who I think is doing a good job. That said, that's not a party specific judgement. If we were discussing a Labour, Tory, or other MPs I admire (and there are still a few from most parties), I'd view any similar actions in a similar light.

To be clear: an MP you dislike should be subject to expulsion from the Commons and possible criminal sanctions for a similar offence, but Laws (and others of whom you approve) should receive no more than a slap on the wrist?
 
No, that's not what I meant. I tried be clear in my earlier post:

theyithian said:
I'm now at a fall-back position where given that so many will go unpunished, we may as well consider public utility as a silver-lining (though it be no moral mitigation).

That's to say that almost all of those who fraudulently claimed expenses should no longer be MPs, and a great many of them should also be facing criminal charges - not just the handful of scapegoats we've been offered.

As this is clearly not now going to happen, I think we may as well examine the redeeming qualities of those that we're stuck with. Just as the judge may consider the former character, work and lifestyle of a convicted criminal when sentencing, we may - given the daunting number of offenders - at least consider how good at their jobs the guilty parties are when passing our judgement - how much use they've been to those they claim to serve. I say 'may as well' because we are at the point where 'justice' has been passed up on with the near blanket amnesty of claims and repayment - any resolutions now are arbitrary not 'just'.

My latter clarification was simply to accept that we as human beings may disagree over the merits of each MP as we have independent minds.
 
That's to say that almost all of those who fraudulently claimed expenses should no longer be MPs, and a great many of them should also be facing criminal charges - not just the handful of scapegoats we've been offered.

But there is a huge difference between those who claimed expenses in accordance with the rules of the time - even if those rules were overly lax or ineffectively policed - and those who lied about their expenditure or circumstances in order to claim money which was not permitted even under the generous system in place at the time. The majority I would argue fell into the former category, and it is wrong to lump them in with the fraudulent minority. Laws' case however is most squarely in the latter. The apparent inability of media and public to distinguish between the two remains baffling IMO.

I reiterate: I don't think many people, good character or not, would get away with a week's suspension for defrauding their employer of sixty grand.
 
This sorry saga finally approaches the end:

Final MP under expenses investigation 'to be charged today'
The final MP still under investigation over the alleged abuse of parliamentary expenses is set to be told today that she is to face criminal charges, the Daily Telegraph understands.
By Robert Winnett, Mark Hughes
6:00AM BST 06 Sep 2011

Detectives investigating Margaret Moran, the former Labour Member for Luton South, handed a file to prosecutors in December last year.
But a decision on whether to prosecute was held up amid Miss Moran’s claims of ill health. She repeatedly said she was too ill to be interviewed by detectives.
Now, it is understood, prosecutors have decided to charge Miss Moran. The Crown Prosecution Service will announce their decision at 11am today.

The decision comes more than two years after the Daily Telegraph revealed details of several MPs who had made illegal claims on their expenses.
Many of those investigated have since been convicted, imprisoned and released in the time it has taken prosecutors to decide to charge her.

The criminal investigation into Miss Moran came after she was exposed by The Daily Telegraph for repeatedly “flipping” her designated second home.
She made expenses claims for at least three different properties, in London, Luton and Southampton, over a four-year period.

Miss Moran claimed more than £20,000 for the treatment of dry rot at the Southampton home – almost 100 miles from either her constituency or Westminster.
In total she claimed more than £98,000 in second home expenses between 2004 and 2009.

Last night a CPS spokesman said: “We have completed our review of a file of evidence in relation to Margaret Moran’s claims for parliamentary expenses. Our decision will be announced tomorrow morning.”

David Chaytor, the first MP jailed over the expenses scandal, spent a quarter of his 18 month sentence in prison before being released earlier this year.
Eric Illsley, Elliot Morley and Jime Devine have all also received prison sentences over the expenses scandal. All were jailed earlier this year and have since been released.
Peers Lord Taylor of Warwick and Lord Hanningfield were also jailed over the expenses scandal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8743285 ... today.html
 
Obviously, only very rich people should be allowed to become MPs. That way there will be less risk of them being tempted to fiddle their expenses. Plus, the very rich (or, 'wealth creators' as we must now call them), can also use the excuse that they have so much money, they just forgot when a few thousand got caught between their fingernails.

Luckily the Tory Party are now well on their way to putting, 'wealth creators' back in charge of the country, like in the good old days. The only thing that worries them now, is serious things like the devaluing of the Swiss franc and the effect it might have on their offshore assets.

For the 'wealth creators', happy days may soon be here, again:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/07/george-osborne-urged-scrap-50p-tax
 
Here we go again:

Newspaper review: Fresh focus on MPs' expenses

There is fresh focus on MPs' expenses, with the Sunday Telegraph reporting more than 180 MPs are enjoying first-class rail travel on the taxpayer.
It says they are exploiting a loophole in the rules allowing them to buy a first-class ticket if cheaper than the anytime standard fare for short notice journeys.

The Mail on Sunday says Ed Miliband has been branded a hypocrite because he mocked George Osborne for travelling first class on Friday but many of those exploiting the loophole are Labour MPs.

The claims about rail travel are just the latest in a growing list of new controversies about expenses.

The Sunday Mirror says a Tory MP is claiming money for staying in a hotel near a flat which he rents out -- it concludes the expenses system "urgently needs to be looked at again".

The Sun highlights a Labour MP who it says claims rent for a flat while he lets out a property he owns nearby.
"Is it any wonder the public are so cynical about politicians?", it asks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20020101

:roll:
 
If theres a loophole and its cheaper than normal travel then perhaps we should all calm down, close the loophole and be happy in the knowledge that the public will sometimes have to pay more for MPs to travel economy than first class. I think this is just stirring it.

The rented properties is far more important an issue to deal with.
 
I'm going to stick my head above the parapet here and say that I think MPs should be allowed to travel first class on trains - at least on long journeys. Senior civil servants are permitted to do so as are people of reasonable seniority in most private sector organisations. It is difficult if not impossible to work in a crowded standard class carriage.

We either accept that being an MP is an important and serious job and should be seen at least as on a par with senior civil servants and private sector middle managers or we buy into the media hysteria and end up with fewer and fewer good quality candidates and more and more political hacks and rich hobbyists.

Osborne's apparent attempt to get a free upgrade is ludicrous if course, but the Mail's attack on Miliband is barrel scrapingly pathetic. If a first class ticket is cheaper than the standard equivalent what's the problem?
 
MP's expenses: Denis MacShane faces 12-month suspension

Former Labour minister Denis MacShane is facing suspension from the Commons for 12 months.
A Parliamentary committee found he had submitted 19 false invoices which were "plainly intended to deceive" Parliament's expenses authority.
The committee said it was the "gravest case" which has come to them for adjudication.
Mr MacShane, who has been suspended from the Labour Party, said he was "shocked and saddened" by the move.

The committee's report described Mr MacShane's false claims as "far from what would be acceptable in any walk of life" and "fell far below the standards of integrity and probity expected of every member of the House".
It also criticised the MP for Rotherham for failing to co-operate with the inquiry.

The false invoices related to work Mr MacShane carried out in Europe, an area for which he previously had ministerial responsibility.
Between 2004 and 2008, he submitted 19 invoices totalling £12,900 for "research and translation" work carried out by the European Policy Institute.

But the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards found the claims also covered travel, subsistence, hospitality and the purchase of books and other publications and were broad estimates of what the MP judged he had spent, rather than receipted items.
He also found that the European Policy Institute, in the way it was presented on the invoice - with a general manager and directors - did not exist.
The organisation was a "loose network", with no office, no salaried staff and with a bank account controlled by Mr MacShane himself.
And the signature on the invoices purporting to be from the institute' s general manager was, in fact, from Mr MacShane.

The commissioner said: "The sum claimed was not a sum determined by the general manager of the EPI... it was the sum of money entered on his computer by Mr MacShane himself.
"In effect, he was sending the invoice to himself and writing his own cheque." :shock:

The "real mischief" of Mr MacShane's actions, the commissioner added, was submitting invoices that bypassed the "checks and controls" of the House and "enabled Mr MacShane to spend public money as he thought fit".

The MPs suggested of the £12,900 of claims he made it was likely around £7,500 were "outside the rules", although Mr MacShane has repaid the entire £12,900.
Mr MacShane was also criticised for "excessive" claims for computer equipment, which MPs are allowed to claim for to support their parliamentary work.
In one instance the commissioner found he had allowed an intern to take a publicly-funded laptop away at the end of their internship, and bought a new one for his next intern. He also claimed for the same computer twice.

In a statement on his website, Mr MacShane said: "Clearly I deeply regret that the way I chose to be reimbursed for costs related to my work in Europe and in combating anti-semitism, including being the prime minister's personal envoy, has been judged so harshly.
"I remain committed to work for progressive values, for Britain playing a full part in Europe, and for combating anti-semitism even though I can no longer undertake this work as a Labour MP.

"I am consulting family and friends as I consider my position and study the full implications of the report.
"I am obviously desperately sorry for any embarrassment I have caused my beloved Labour Party and its leader Ed Miliband whom I greatly admire."

Mr MacShane had been suspended from the Labour party while police investigated his expenses claims, but he had the whip reinstated when the criminal inquiry was dropped in July.

A Labour Party spokesperson said: "These are very serious findings concerning Denis MacShane and we accept his statement this morning that his career as a Labour MP is effectively over.
"In the light of the report's recommendations to the House the Labour Party has suspended Denis MacShane with immediate effect, pending a full NEC enquiry.
"We will be talking to Denis MacShane about his future and the best course of action for him and for his constituency."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20178332
 
Thank goodness so many Tories are independently wealthy, offshored and don't feel the need to fiddle their expenses for a few piffling thousands of pounds, they've got real money.
 
I too despise successful people and those deliberately born into wealthy families.
 
theyithian said:
I too despise successful people and those deliberately born into wealthy families.
So, you didn't vote for the Bullingdon Boys' Party then?
 
John Bercow and his bullies bring shame on our Parliament
The Speaker is leading an ambush by MPs of the body set up to control their expenses
By Peter Oborne
9:11PM GMT 14 Nov 2012

Incredibly, a largish proportion of MPs are still unable to accept that they did anything wrong in the expenses scandal. Privately they maintain that the Telegraph was at fault for revealing the story – and not the parliamentarians themselves for their greedy and (in many cases) criminal conduct.

This state of denial first became obvious with the election of John Bercow as Commons Speaker, after Michael Martin was obliged to resign. Several untainted MPs put themselves up for election, of whom the most admirable was Richard Shepherd. But the Commons made an extraordinary public statement when it elected Bercow, one of the most notorious expenses claimants, as Mr Martin’s successor.

The Buckinghamshire MP had “flipped” the designation of his main and second homes between London and his constituency, and designated each as his main home at the time he sold it. This meant he paid no capital gains tax on either sale. When the facts came out, Bercow insisted he had done nothing wrong. He announced, nevertheless, that he would “voluntarily” pay the sum of £6,508 plus interest to the Inland Revenue, reflecting the tax which he could have been required to pay in respect of the sale of one of the two houses.

In ordinary life, this kind of behaviour would have been regarded with disgust, and disqualified him from responsible office. In the House of Commons, by contrast, Bercow’s greed and amorality presented no impediment to one of the highest, and in theory the most honourable, offices in the land. The identity of the present Commons Speaker symbolises the fact that the Commons, as an institution, still feels zero contrition for the moral squalor and criminality of the expenses scandal.

Such was the enormity of the wrongdoing, and the scale of public anger, that Bercow and his fellow MPs had no choice but to hand over the management of their finances to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa). But they bitterly resent the scrutiny that has resulted, and the need to place their expenses claims before Ipsa for authorisation.

Right from the moment that Ipsa was created, just over two years ago, Bercow has tolerated a series of vicious and unscrupulous assaults on the expenses watchdog. Ipsa staff have been abused and intimidated – one was even reduced to tears when subjected to a foul-mouthed personal attack by Denis MacShane, who was this month finally obliged to resign his Rotherham seat because of his fraudulent expenses claims.

Another Labour MP, Ann Clwyd, accused, under parliamentary privilege, a member of Ipsa staff, who has since left the organisation, of leaking details of MPs’ expenses to the press. This attack was especially low grade because, as Ms Clwyd would have known, the official in question was in no position to answer back. There is no evidence that Speaker Bercow has ever rebuked Ms Clwyd for this cowardly attack. Her allegation was never proved. Unsavoury practices are returning to the Commons, as a Channel 4 Dispatches film, to be screened shortly I believe, will reveal.

Meanwhile, Bercow allowed the full machinery of the House of Commons to be deployed in an effort to scrutinise Ipsa and cause it embarrassment. Over the past two years this tiny organisation has been subjected to no fewer than five separate audits and parliamentary reviews. It has been examined by the public accounts committee, by the office of government commerce, by the committee on members’ expenses, and twice by the National Audit Office. Now, it goes without saying that Ipsa should not be exempt from scrutiny. The level of examination endured by the watchdog is, however, unprecedented for a body of its importance and size. It amounts to repeated and deliberate harassment.

Yesterday, Ipsa cracked. Four of its five board members are leaving, reportedly concerned about the meddling by Bercow. These are all serious and respected people, including a former high court judge, Sir Scott Baker, who carried out the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Professor Isobel Sharp, who has served on the UK’s Accounting Standards Board.

The Ipsa four are victims of a power grab engineered by Bercow. Ever since the regulatory body was set up two years ago, his MPs have been determined to reclaim the right to govern their own affairs that they were forced to cede in the wake of the expenses scandal.

etc...

It is time that David Cameron intervened personally to bring a halt to the Speaker’s outrageous plan to diminish Ipsa – or before long he, too, will be discredited by this sordid and unpleasant affair.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ament.html

Truly shameful. :evil:
 
Pity we have no recommend button. They just don't get it. Do they really think the letter of the law (or the letter of the rules, in this case) is the only arbiter of moral and civilised behaviour? If so, how dare they whine on about tax avoidance?
 
More MPs bill taxpayer for rent as they let out their homes
At least 32 MPs have been found to be claiming rent for second homes on their expenses while simultaneously letting out property nearby, an investigation reveals.
By Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent
10:00PM GMT 18 Nov 2012

The MPs, including former Cabinet ministers, are claiming expenses of up to £20,000 a year each for rent, as well as receiving money from properties that were often bought and refurbished with taxpayer assistance.
Last month it was disclosed that 27 MPs were letting out their second homes while charging the taxpayer for renting another property.

Tonight’s Channel 4’s Dispatches programme found five more — three MPs who were carrying out the practice in London and another two who were renting and letting properties in their constituencies.

The MPs now found to be renting out homes in London are: John Whittingdale, the Conservative chairman of the culture, media and sport committee, the Tory MP Mark Pritchard and John Denham, a former Labour cabinet minister.
Labour’s Michael Meacher was also found by Dispatches to have moved out of his home in Oldham to rent a new property, while Pat McFadden, a Labour former minister, did the same in Wolverhampton.

The rules of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) state that “members of Parliament must not exploit the system for personal financial advantage”.
The MPs insist they have done nothing wrong, and were forced to act by new Ipsa rules banning claims for mortgage interest payments from the end of August.

The full details will be disclosed by the authority today when it publishes names of the landlords of more than 300 MPs, defying the wishes of John Bercow, the Speaker.
Officials from Ipsa have worked through the weekend to get the information published today. Some of the names of the MPs’ landlords have been redacted for security reasons, sources told The Daily Telegraph.

The list will also give the names of another four MPs who are either letting properties to or renting from another MP, that effectively allows them to build up property nest-eggs at taxpayers’ expense.

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... homes.html

Dispatches — MPs: Are They Still At It? is on Monday at 8pm on Channel 4.
 
I'm not sure this is "MPs at it again" so much as unintended consequences from the change in the rules barring claims for mortgage interest payments. It might have been more sensible to allow existing arrangements to continue but place a ban on new claims for mortgages.

In essence the whole system is broken and a more sensible approach would be to pay MPs a significantly higher salary and then let them decide how to spend it - ie if they want to sleep on a friend's sofa and bank the cash that's up to them, if they want to push the boat out on a nice flat somewhere that's also their call. This won't happen of course because of the media sh*tfit that would follow such a change so we will continue to have these dreary articles and programmes.
 
Twenty MPs pocket up to £180,000 each on taxpayer-funded second homes
Almost 20 ministers and MPs have pocketed up to £180,000 each after selling their taxpayer-funded second homes for a profit.
By Steven Swinford, and Rowena Mason
9:50PM BST 09 May 2013

The MPs have jointly made more than £1 million by selling their second homes, and under parliamentary rules they are entitled to keep the money.
The scale of their windfall was disclosed for the first time in figures released by the parliamentary watchdog today, and prompted accusations that MPs were making a personal profit from taxpayers' money.

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, handed all the profit he made on the sale of his second home to House of Commons authorities in 2011.
Sources close to Mr Clegg said the Liberal Democrat leader believed it was the "right thing to do", although it is largely up to MPs to decide whether they want to do the same.

Martin Bell, the former MP who has campaigned for greater transparency, said that MPs should repay any profit they make on the properties.
He said: "It's an open and shut case, of course they should pay it back. There is the spirit of the law, why are they making a personal profit from allowances which they receive from the taxpayer? In this case they very clearly are." However one MP said that as he was not required to pay the money back he would not be doing so. Another said that she had used the money to reduce the mortgage on her family home, while a third said he was investing his profit for his grandchildren.

A total of 29 MPs have been asked to repay profits made since 2010, under new rules that came into effect after the expenses scandal, according to figures published by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

Only one of them, Stewart Jackson, a Conservative MP, refused to repay the money. He is now being sued by the expenses watchdog for the £54,000.
He disputes the claim and says Ipsa has been "heavy handed". He also claims that his property has actually fallen in value since he bought it.

Under the previous expenses regime MPs were able to claim mortgage payments, furnishings, stamp duty, legal fees and other costs on their second homes.

Following the formation of Ipsa in May 2010, the watchdog moved to ban the use of Commons expenses to pay mortgage interest, in the wake of public fury over the expenses scandal.

Transitional arrangements meant MPs elected before 2010 could keep claiming the money until last August as long as they agreed to return any profits they made if they sold a taxpayer funded residence. The rules state MPs are only required to hand back profits made on their properties between May 2010 and August 2012.

The requirement means that MPs whose homes have been funded by the taxpayer for years have to return only a small amount of the profit. Ipsa today disclosed that a total of 19 MPs sold their homes between 2010 and 2012.

David Gauke, the Tory Exchequer Secretary, made a £67,000 profit from the sale of his flat in Kennington, south London, but has only been asked to repay £26,762.
His main home is in Chorleywood, Herts, which is a 45-minute commute to London. Mr Gauke bought his Kennington flat in 2007 for £285,000, and claimed more than £13,000 in mortgage interest between 2010 and 2012.
He sold the flat in August last year for £352,000. A spokesman said he had "abided by the rules" at all times. Mr Gauke previously said it was "morally wrong" to pay tradesmen cash-in-hand.

Lorely Burt, chair manof the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party, has claimed expenses against her flat in Victoria, central London, since she bought it for £380,000 in 2005.
She sold the property for £560,000 in 2010, having made a £180,000 profit. She has not been asked to pay any of the money back to Ipsa, because the profit did not relate to the 2010-12 period.

She said her decision to keep the repayment was within the rules and justified by the "large amount" of her own money she spent buying the property. Mrs Burt said she used the profit to reduce the mortgage of her family home in Solihull.
She said the mortgage repayments were the[n] cheaper than the cost of the hotel she now stays in while in London.

Malcolm Bruce, a Liberal Democrat MP, made £111,000 on the sale of his home in Kennington, south London, in 2010, and has not been required to pay any of the money back.
He said: "I'm not required [to give it back]. I paid the capital gains tax and that's the end of it. I also invested a lot of my own money over the 20 odd years."

Ronnie Campbell, a Labour MP, made £90,000 on the sale of his Kennington flat in 2011.
"I have invested it for my grandkids. That [money] is mine, that's mine, I put a £15,000 deposit down on that flat. We did make a profit, properties do go up [in value], but it's mine."

He said that his mortgage payments were signicantly cheaper to the taxpayer than renting a flat, as he does now. He said: "By throwing me out on the British streets like a dog in the night, the taxpayer has lost a lot of money.

Angela Smith, shadow deputy leader of the house, made a £170,000 profit and was asked to repay just £8,496. She said she had "co-operated fully with the IPSA" and "repaid monies without question or delay".

Hazel Blears, Labour MP for Salford and a former Cabinet minister, made a £120,000 profit when she sold her London home for £420,000 in 2010.
She said she had only claimed against the property for six months and had paid £13,000 in capital gains tax which she did not need to.

Alan Whitehead, another Labour MP, made an £89,400 profit when he sold his London home last year. He said he had put a large amount of his own money into the property and that the mortgage had been 50 per cent of the purchase price.
He said: "By the time we entered into the age of IPSA, the mortgage was 21 per cent of the value of the property, and the [capital gains] repayment reflected that."

All of the MPs would have been expected to pay capital gains tax on the sales.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... homes.html
 
Following the big expenses scandal the other year, I felt that at least 50 MPs justified sacking - without a pay-off, because no-one else would get one if sacked for fraud and theft - and of those, 10-20 should have gone to jail. As it was, what happened? 3-4 jail sentences, and were any actually kicked out on their arses? Of course, then, it is no surprise that stuff like this still goes on.

Assuming that half of the sitting MPs are up to their necks in this trough-slurping orgy of greed, why don't we just keep the other half? I can't see why this nation couldn't survive with only 300 or so MPs.
 
Following the big expenses scandal the other year, I felt that at least 50 MPs justified sacking - without a pay-off, because no-one else would get one if sacked for fraud and theft - and of those, 10-20 should have gone to jail. As it was, what happened? 3-4 jail sentences, and were any actually kicked out on their arses? Of course, then, it is no surprise that stuff like this still goes on.

Assuming that half of the sitting MPs are up to their necks in this trough-slurping orgy of greed, why don't we just keep the other half? I can't see why this nation couldn't survive with only 300 or so MPs.

At the risk of repeating what I said earlier on the thread, I think that actual fraudulent behaviour was quite rare and those MPs who had done so were generally prosecuted - although David Laws' actions certainly seemed at the egregious end of the spectrum and it was somewhat surprising that no further action was taken.

Quite a few other MPs decided not to stand for re-election in the wake of expenses revelations.

I don't think there is any evidence that "half of the sitting MPs are up to their necks in this trough-slurping orgy of greed". I think the rules on expenses were over-generous and laxly enforced and there was as a result quite a lot of piss-taking. However neither media nor public seemed able to distinguish between fraud, piss-taking, and claims that were legitimate under the rules at the time but which illustrated the stupidity of the policies in place at the time.

I also think there is a sinister aspect to this. Large media companies, run by right wing tycoons, have a vested interest in weakening trust in elected officials. It would suit such people very well indeed to have politics solely a rich man's game.
 
I personally think that many folk are incredibly naive in that morality and "what is fundamentally fair" matters anything to politicians, of any party.

During the past Expenses Scandal - which has now gone down the pan in public awareness like the newspapers which filled their pages with it - the common cry was "We've done nothing wrong - it's all legal".
And, of course, nothing will change this perfectly legal situation since those that make the laws, abuse them.
 
I previously suggested (and was mocked by some) that the issue of second homes in London for MP's could be easily resolved and be fairer to the public purse, if the government bought property or built a secure residential building and let out said properties to MP's. The MP would be given an allowance to redecorate when he/she takes over a property. It would be furnished, again based on a strictly controlled budget. If they want a 60 inch plasma TV, then thats for their own pocket.

If someone doesn't want to live there, then give them a set allowance, and they can use it as they see fit to go towards a property of their choice. However, if they buy, and the property has risen in value, then they only get back any monies made above and beyond the allowance paid, and the allowance is repaid to the treasury.

One of my detractors said something like how ridiculous the security issues would be, but then we have Soldiers housed all in one readily identifiable building, we have trainee Police officers all housed together and so on. On the plus side for security, it's easier to watch over a group of people in one building, than to consider hundreds scattered across a city the size of London.
 
Although I think security would be an issue - that number of legislators in one place would attract the crazies looking for a spectacular in the way that a single MP living quietly in a residental street would not - I do think that the provision of grace and favour apartments of this sort is probably the way to go. There is no political will to increase MPs' salaries to a level where they could easily afford accommodation in zones 1 or 2 and the expenses/allowances system is wholly discredited. The security issue could perhaps be addressed by having a number of flats in various places rather than them all in the same place.

As you say though, we manage to protect other terrorist targets such as airports and embassies so I'm sure it's not beyond the will of man to do something similar for a building of MPs.
 
Many wealthy folk, celebrities etc. manage to live in highly secure houses - usually in rural areas - and gated communities, so security is hardly an issue. We're not talking about bunging them all in a block of flats in East London here (though this appeals to me) but well-built housing with security.

Keep 'em all in one place and it's easier to keep secure. Until, of course, they decide they want to stay the night at their lover's gaff.
 
Back
Top