Corruption

[Sankari]

That would be true if everything in Oz was "twice" the price, but it's not. Average house price in Canberra is about £200k, average price in London is £350k. And the figures for London will be substantially less than they were in June 2007 when the Oz ones were measured.

Therefore they do have much greater buying power.

Median house price figures aren't very helpful in this context because they don't tell the full story. In any case, that figure of £200k is only for units; not houses (and pretty damn small units, at that). Median price for a house in Canberra is actually £309k.

If you want to compare buying power it makes more sense to compare the price of goods and services that both sets of MPs are purchasing, like food and temporary accommodation. And as plenty of ex-pat Brits will tell you, the average cost of living is more expensive in Australia than the UK.

At any rate, this all begs the question "If Canberra prices are so cheap, why don't Australian MPs buy second homes in Canberra for the purpose of attending Parliament House?" Most likely for the simple reason that they don't need them (and probably can't afford them anyway). Yet British MPs seem to have no trouble buying second homes in London. And why do they need them in the first place? No reason that I can see.

Let's also remember that some MPs are lazing around in "grace & favour" homes (for which Australia has no equivalent). Don't even get me started on those.

 

[Jokester]

Median house price figures aren't very helpful in this context because they don't tell the full story. In any case, that figure of £200k is only for units; not houses (and pretty damn small units, at that). Median price for a house in Canberra is actually £309k.

If you want to compare buying power it makes more sense to compare the price of goods and services that both sets of MPs are purchasing, like food and temporary accommodation. And as plenty of ex-pat Brits will tell you, the average cost of living is more expensive in Australia than the UK.

At any rate, this all begs the question "If Canberra prices are so cheap, why don't Australian MPs buy second homes in Canberra for the purpose of attending Parliament House?" Most likely for the simple reason that they don't need them (and probably can't afford them anyway). Yet British MPs seem to have no trouble buying second homes in London. And why do they need them in the first place? No reason that I can see.

Let's also remember that some MPs are lazing around in "grace & favour" homes (for which Australia has no equivalent). Don't even get me started on those.

Well, if you want to compare city centre prices, then Westmister is £825k, so again Australian MPS have much bigger buying power for like for like areas. Indeed on the cost of living front Canberra is lower than other Oz major cities, and lower than London:-

Cost of living

The cost of living in Canberra is similar to that of other smaller Australian states, and is low when compared to other major cities such as London, Moscow, Dublin and Hong Kong.

And on the subject of long distance commuting there is an article here with an Australian MP moaning about it:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4950192.stm

Edit: And to why they don't buy a second home? They don't have to go through the hassle that British MPs need to go through to get their hands on that cash

 

[NEOMARXIST]

Unfortunately, under a Communist regime like the one you'd like to see implemented, we wouldn't be entitled to our own beliefs or opinions.

Again in your Judgemental opinion you "assume" you know exactly what I'm talking about and assume because you hear the word 'Communism' you think of Lenin and Stalin of the Soviet Union and their brutal, authoritarian regime.
If you re-read my post you will see that I beleive in a "Socialist" agenda which is very different to that of a Communist regime.
It really ain't that off the Wall, just a bit fairer really, The rich will still be very rich and the poor will still be poor, just that the gap between the two will not be so Distant and major institutions will be nationalsised so the wealth is distributed back into the hands of the people, as opposed to the few rich Fatcats.
Oh, and please don't assume that I do not know what I am talking about within my field, i spent a lot of my money (of which I still have considerable debt) on a degree course in Sociology/politics at one of THE top Universitie's within this field so I have formed my opinions based on a Little bit of reading and research.

 

[Trusty]

Which university?

 

[Sankari]

Well, if you want to compare city centre prices, then Westmister is £825k, so again Australian MPS have much bigger buying power for like for like areas. Indeed on the cost of living front Canberra is lower than other Oz major cities, and lower than London

And yet... where are all the Aussie MPs with second homes in Canberra? Mysteriously absent. So it's obviously not that simple.

And on the subject of long distance commuting there is an article here with an Australian MP moaning about it:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4950192.stm

I don't hear him offering to resign.

Edit: And to why they don't buy a second home? They don't have to go through the hassle that British MPs need to go through to get their hands on that cash

LOL, what hassle? As we've seen from the current exposé, the system is little more than a rubber stamp job. You send in your claims and you walk away with the cash. Easy as.

I still haven't seen any justification for British MPs owning second homes in London. It's a complete joke.

 

[Jokester]

I still haven't seen any justification for British MPs owning second homes in London. It's a complete joke.

Because they need to be in London for substantial parts of the year?

Ok, lets do a comparison. A Brit MP can get expenses for property in London, but less salary in real terms. So it's preferential for him to rent/buy somewhere in London and claim it on expenses.

A Oz MP gets more wage, but can also cliam travel expenses. He can either pay out of his own pocket for somewhere in Canberra or he claims all his travel expenses at no cost to himself.

It's no wonder that Oz MPs prefer to travel whilst Brit MPs get somewhere in London.

 

[rypt]

Because they need to be in London for substantial parts of the year?

A proper train system can have them at the House of Parliament within 90 minutes from most parts of the UK - which is perfectly fair; plenty of people travel 90 minutes (or more) to get to work every day.

 

[Dolph]

A proper train system can have them at the House of Parliament within 90 minutes from most parts of the UK - which is perfectly fair; plenty of people travel 90 minutes (or more) to get to work every day.

Or they could fly, or utilise video conferencing technology like most companies do these days.

There are plenty of alternatives to paying them to buy/funish/own a house in London.

 

[Jokester]

Yes they could do all of these things, but property retains it's value, so aslong as the MPs themselves aren't profitting from public money I see no issue in accomodation being provided for them.

 

[Dolph]

Yes they could do all of these things, but property retains it's value, so aslong as the MPs themselves aren't profitting from public money I see no issue in accomodation being provided for them.

neither do I (as I said earlier), but that's not what happens at the moment. There is no need for us to fund them owning or furnishing property.

 

[Mr-White]

Exactly, just because they need access to the second home it doesn't mean they should be given one. They should be provided with the facility for as long as they need it. That way the cost would be one initial cost for the building plus maintenance for every active MP as opposed to the cost of a building and maintenance for every MP new and old.

MW

 

[Jokester]

neither do I (as I said earlier), but that's not what happens at the moment. There is no need for us to fund them owning or furnishing property.

Which is my point entirely, but I'm pointing out to Evangelion that the idea that Australian MPs don't need local accomodation is suspect based on their expenses system favouring travelling, whilst the British system favours local property.

For me, the ideal situation is that MPs are provided with decent accomodation (not dorms!) that they don't profit from personally, even if this involves the taxpayer buying high quality and expensive property in the centre of London as long as it remains public property.To me that's preferrable to spending large amounts on travel continually.

 

[scorza]

If you really want to get rid of the second home allowance then you should really be talking about removing the restriction that MPs have to maintain a constituency home.

If you're going to compare the job of being an MP with the oh so efficient private sector, then you'd have to say that as the job is based in London then MPs should be based in or near London - it's only for political purposes that they need to have a home in that constituency. Remember career politician Shaun Woodward buying a crappy 2 bedroom terraced house in St Helens when he defected to Labour? When they simply have to go back to meet the people that they actually represent it would be reasonable to pay for the MP to stay in a hotel. That's the logical, private sector style thinking anyway, not that I agree with it.

I can't really see how we could expect our MPs to be effective if they have to fly to a London airport, train to centre, underground to Westminster, do a full days work then go all the way back to their constituency. Likewise I don't think they can be effective by using video conferencing - there's a hell of a lot more to being an MP than what we see goes on in the House of Commons.

 

[Dolph]

My MP isn't very effective anyway, so I can't see how they could become less effective...

Unfortunately, people round here would vote for a lettuce if you pinned a red rosette on to it.

 

[scorza]

My MP isn't very effective anyway, so I can't see how they could become less effective...

How do you say that? I would have thought that judging the effectiveness of an individual MP would be quite hard - you can look at the numbers on sites like theyworkforyou.com, but that wouldn't tell the whole story either.

 

[rypt]

How do you say that? I would have thought that judging the effectiveness of an individual MP would be quite hard - you can look at the numbers on sites like theyworkforyou.com, but that wouldn't tell the whole story either.

You look at how many times he voted against the party line and in-line with what the people/constituents wanted.

 

[scorza]

You look at how many times he voted against the party line and in-line with what the people/constituents wanted.

And how do we (or the MP for that matter) know what the constituents want? If we did know what they wanted, and they (or the majority of them at least) for example wanted paint-balling banned, does that mean the MP should be duty bound to vote for a paint ball ban?

 

[Dolph]

How do you say that? I would have thought that judging the effectiveness of an individual MP would be quite hard - you can look at the numbers on sites like theyworkforyou.com, but that wouldn't tell the whole story either.

That was part of my judgement actually.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/alison_seabeck/plymouth,_devonport

But also in terms of doing what she can to ensure government investment in the area, answering constituents queries in an appropriate and timely fashion, and generally actually representing her constituents, she's been pretty pathetic. She does quite well at supporting her party, but that's a different matter entirely.

 

[rypt]

If we did know what they wanted, and they (or the majority of them at least) for example wanted paint-balling banned, does that mean the MP should be duty bound to vote for a paint ball ban?

Yes. That is the point of the MP, to represent the views of his constituents.

 

[Dolph]

Yes. That is the point of the MP, to represent the views of his constituents.

Which is the reason why restrictions on lawmaking based on opinion and whim need to be enshrined higher up the system.

It should be the MP's job to raise the issue for investigation based on the will of their constiuents. Whether the law actually comes to pass should be independant of what people want and instead based on a solid factual analysis only.