When payment of MPs began in 1911, the aim was simple: to stop working men from being unfairly excluded through want of means. What nobody intended was to create a body of professional politicians living off the public purse, entitled to an upper middle class way of life and the perks of middle management. Parliament worked at least as well with unpaid MPs serving for the honour of it as it does with the rather part-time members of today.

Just because he objects to the provisino of MP’s addresses, it does not follow that judges should publish theirs. That is just childish

And it is silly too because judges need to keep their addresses private: there are plenty of angry villains who would like to know where they live. And judges do not get second houses paid for out of tax-free allowances. It is because the taxpayer pays for MPs second homes that the details of what is being claimed should be made public.

I would have hoped that all Conserviative MPs would have realised by now that the voters are not happy with MPs obtaining substantial sums of taxpayers money by way of allowances and then trying to cover up the details.

For instance, look up http://www.foodfrombritain.com, click onto Regional food producers and then “regions” and then watch the names of 17 other mini quangos spring up like asparagus in May. The regional governments and local authorities are all sources of these additional quangos. EU funding to the regions also produces more. There seems to be no end to it…….

1/ Any property purchased by an MP which enables her/him to carry out her/his parliamentary duties should be handed back to the state once that MP is no longer in office (that is if the MP has been claiming expenses against the mortgage payments etc. for that property). The property could then either be sold and the money be used to purchase another property for the next MP for that constituency should they need one, or the property could be handed over to the new MP.

2/ A nett financial asset limit should be set with regards to those MPs who do wish to claim for payments against second properties. In my view, if a MP has a assets portfolio above £3 million he or she has the means to buy or rent a decent second property without the assistance of the state.

However, should an MP be in such a position and they do purchase a property in their constituency or London and they find that, once they end their tenure as a MP, the value of the property has fallen, they should be compensated for the loss. This would not apply to those who already owned such property prior to becoming an MP.

Every quango in the UK is listed here….

http://quangos.ercouncil.org/faq/answer,0,1,0,0,0_quangos_economic_research_council.html

There will be a growing debate about this over on the Taxpayers’ Alliance as time goes on, because we do not know just how many there really are. I do not think anyone in the government knows how many there are. And if they do, they won’t tell us until it is dragged out of them.

Government funding – its called “sponsorship” in Treasury papers – is reaching all sorts of nooks and crannies of our lives and businesses. Quangos arise directly from government departments; indirectly from bigger quangos; indirectly from EU funding and indirectly from joint funding from departments and local authorities. Funding also reaches charities and quasi regulatory organisations, e.g. the Soil Association, which receives about one third of its total income from the taxpayer.

All of these have committees overseeing them, and they too receive money from the taxpayer.

I would like to see total funding as well as senior staff’s pay and pension rights. I would also like to see just how far into our lives these unelected, unaccountable organisations get.

Still the expenses can be a bit of a racket & I am not convinced the Lords is worth the money & whoever ran the contracts for Portcullis House should be strung up.

Your point about increases in the present economic climate is well made. I would have no objection to MPs being well rewarded by a bonus when the economy grows above 2.5% – 33% of salary for each 1% of extra growth for that year would concentrate minds wonderfully.

(But then I stood for the 9% Growth Party)

Our homeware is competitively priced and rumours that MPs are are given preferential treatment by our accounts department to gild their SW1 flats with exotic, designer-label marble extravagance are wide of the mark.

Successful, hard-working professionals should enjoy the fruits of their labours. They require domestic tranquility and aesthetic harmony to grapple with the ever more pressing issues that impinge of the lives of the ordinary folk to whose well-being they are dedicated.

Why should MPs get paid excessively generous allowances simply for doing their job when everyone else has to juggle their budget to make ends meet?

What’s more, MPs can vote themselves any allowance or emolument they like – a privilege denied to the rest of us.

[I thought Maggie had abolished closed shops in the 1980s - apparently not.]

My own view is that MPs are not paid enough for the job some of them do but, where does one fix the rate? Should it be fixed on a productivity basis so that those that put in the hours reap the rewards and those that do very little once elected earn less? Sounds a good idea to me but, how do we measure the productivity level?

It seems the main concern of the public is the level of expenses claimed and what those expenses can be claimed for.

In my opinion, each constituency should have an office with flat above owned by the people which the MP can use if he does not live locally.
In Westminster we could have a large hostel type building for MPs to use when staying in London.

Second homes funded by the taxpayer and then the MP keeping the profits on the second home when sold is obscene in my view.

I think the level of MPs salaries should be raised to reflect the role they perform but, being an MP should these days be regarded as a full time job, which it is, and MPs should not have to rely on creative expenses claims to get a realistic income.

John, most of my criticisms above do not apply to you as, being a Wokingham resident, I know that we get very good value for money from yourself.

Whether there are wide spread frauds or dodgy expenses claims being perpentrated or not is not really the question, it is the perception that these things take place that causes the harm and I feel that MPs expenses claims should come under the same rules put on ordinary people by the HMRC namely, no receipt no allowance and only allowable items accepted that are directly brought about as a consequense of carrying out the role of MP.

Why not set an example – publish your expense details on this blog.

In fact, why doesn’t the Tory party publish all MPs accounts now – why wait to be forced to comply?

You MPs should be leading not running for cover.

reply: My expense details are published on theyworkforyou.com and I have just sent a commenbt round to my constituents about what I do in my newspaper.

25 May, 2008 – 16:27 — james
Total Budget for Bristol City Council’s Chief Executive

The total annual cost of the Office of the Chief Executive of Bristol City Council is £14,650,000 pounds. Using my ready reckoning rule, this is equivalent to a minimum of £76.03 added to every council tax bill.

This is a great way of extracting profits out of a company if you have one.

What do you think my chances of success are?

Will I get my local MP to support me if the IR object?

Nick