You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Options

Labour chief claimed £40,000 expenses to rent house next door

«134

Comments

  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,618
    Within the rules, but still slippery.
  • Options
    tai-gartai-gar Member Posts: 2,639
    HAYSIE said:

    Within the rules, but still slippery.

    Whatever their colour most of them are in it for themselves IMHO and unfortunately in my experience throughout my life.
  • Options
    Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 163,899
    tai-gar said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Within the rules, but still slippery.

    Whatever their colour most of them are in it for themselves IMHO and unfortunately in my experience throughout my life.

    @tai-gar


    In politics, it was not always so. I could list many examples, but, as an example, back in the day, Tony Wedgewood Benn was a proper politician, irrespective of whether we liked his political hue. So was Mrs Thatcher, even though she became phenomenally unpopular. They were in politics for the right reasons & the complete opposite of, say, Truss or Boris.

    I actually think Jess Phillips is a good politician too. She's not in it for personal gain.
  • Options
    EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,406
    tai-gar said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Within the rules, but still slippery.

    Whatever their colour most of them are in it for themselves IMHO and unfortunately in my experience throughout my life.
    I think that is a little unfair.

    As a nation, we increasingly hold politicians to a standard that few of us ever intend keeping ourselves.

    Millions of people pay thousands of people to help them avoid paying tax. Tax avoidance (as opposed to tax evasion) is perfectly legal. And most of us, to varying degrees, seek to lessen our tax burden by making legal choices. While simultaneously claiming it is just politicians who act in this way.

    We complain about Amazon not paying their fair share of tax. While buying stuff from them because they are a few quid cheaper.

    It is not an "all or nothing" thing. Most politicians, whatever their colour, are genuinely trying to improve things for all of us. While trying to provide for their family. Because it is possible to try and look after others while also looking after your own.
  • Options
    goldongoldon Member Posts: 8,696
    Charity begins at home..... hic!
  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,618
    Essexphil said:

    tai-gar said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Within the rules, but still slippery.

    Whatever their colour most of them are in it for themselves IMHO and unfortunately in my experience throughout my life.
    I think that is a little unfair.

    As a nation, we increasingly hold politicians to a standard that few of us ever intend keeping ourselves.

    Millions of people pay thousands of people to help them avoid paying tax. Tax avoidance (as opposed to tax evasion) is perfectly legal. And most of us, to varying degrees, seek to lessen our tax burden by making legal choices. While simultaneously claiming it is just politicians who act in this way.

    We complain about Amazon not paying their fair share of tax. While buying stuff from them because they are a few quid cheaper.

    It is not an "all or nothing" thing. Most politicians, whatever their colour, are genuinely trying to improve things for all of us. While trying to provide for their family. Because it is possible to try and look after others while also looking after your own.
    If I understand this correctly.
    He bought a house in his constituency in 2006.
    He proceeded to claim his mortgage interest of £547 per month, on an interest only mortgage, for 6 years.
    When the rules changed, and he was no longer able to reclaim the interest payments, he decided to rent his own house out, and rent the house next door.
    I think an honest person would have stayed where he was.
    He chose to claim an additional 40k in expenses in respect of the rent.
    Why did he think the rules were being changed?
    Did he sleep through the MPs expenses scandal?

    He sold the house 11 years later in 2017, at a loss.
    This demonstates that not only he is a bit slippery, he must also be very bad at buying houses.
    I have known people to lose money on houses in the short term, but never over that sort of period.
    Although he is not consistently bad at it, as the value of his other home has grown by a million quid.

    The rules were being changed because it was deemed unfair for MPs to build up a property portfolio on expenses.
    He exploited a loophole.
    He had a cunning plan to rent his own house out, to cover the mortgage interest, and rent next door on expenses.
    He did operate within the rules.
    I dont think the general public will see it that way.
  • Options
    EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,406
    edited May 16
    Suppose you are doing a job. Any job. Forget he is an MP for a minute.

    Suppose that, in order to carry out that job properly, it is necessary to work from Wolverhampton 150 days a year. And Westminster 150 days a year.

    Do you believe it would be unreasonable to expect your Employer to pay the additional costs of the 2nd place of work? For the hotel and/or rent?

    Because that is the position that literally hundreds of MPs live with in the real world-everyone except the MPs whose constituencies are an easy commute from Westminster.

    That is Conservative MPs. Labour MPs. Lib Dems. SNP. DUP. Pretty much everyone.

    MPs are going to fall into precisely 2 camps. Those who have the money to buy a 2nd home. And those who do not. From there, the rule change meant that people who already owned a 2nd home would be incentivised to rent a 2nd home, rather than buy it.

    The rule change was not designed to stop MPs claiming Rent. Just to stop them using it as part of an investment.

    How many MPs are doing exactly the same as this Labour MP? Lots. Lots of Tory MPs too. Except the Torygraph must have forgotten to mention that. Because they only want to show things that suit their own political agenda.
  • Options
    tai-gartai-gar Member Posts: 2,639
    Tikay10 said:

    tai-gar said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Within the rules, but still slippery.

    Whatever their colour most of them are in it for themselves IMHO and unfortunately in my experience throughout my life.

    @tai-gar


    In politics, it was not always so. I could list many examples, but, as an example, back in the day, Tony Wedgewood Benn was a proper politician, irrespective of whether we liked his political hue. So was Mrs Thatcher, even though she became phenomenally unpopular. They were in politics for the right reasons & the complete opposite of, say, Truss or Boris.

    I actually think Jess Phillips is a good politician too. She's not in it for personal gain.

    There are obviously exceptions to every rule.

    p.s. I thought it would generate some debate.
  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,618
    Essexphil said:

    Suppose you are doing a job. Any job. Forget he is an MP for a minute.

    Suppose that, in order to carry out that job properly, it is necessary to work from Wolverhampton 150 days a year. And Westminster 150 days a year.

    Do you believe it would be unreasonable to expect your Employer to pay the additional costs of the 2nd place of work? For the hotel and/or rent?

    Because that is the position that literally hundreds of MPs live with in the real world-everyone except the MPs whose constituencies are an easy commute from Westminster.

    That is Conservative MPs. Labour MPs. Lib Dems. SNP. DUP. Pretty much everyone.

    MPs are going to fall into precisely 2 camps. Those who have the money to buy a 2nd home. And those who do not. From there, the rule change meant that people who already owned a 2nd home would be incentivised to rent a 2nd home, rather than buy it.

    The rule change was not designed to stop MPs claiming Rent. Just to stop them using it as part of an investment.

    How many MPs are doing exactly the same as this Labour MP? Lots. Lots of Tory MPs too. Except the Torygraph must have forgotten to mention that. Because they only want to show things that suit their own political agenda.

    I wouldnt dispute a lot of that.
    Although I think you are missing the point a little.
    He bought a house and took advantage of the rules by claiming his mortgage interest back on expenses.
    The rules then changed.
    An honest person would have merely said, I will now have to pay the mortgage interest myself.
    Because that was the new rule.
    A real alternative if he was unable to afford the mortgage himself, would have been to have sold the house immediately, and rented another property.
    However, he wanted the penny and the bun.
    He wanted to rent out his own property, to cover the mortgage cost, and rent another on expenses.
    This was exactly what the new rule was attempting to prevent.
    He was attempting to accumulate a property portfolio at no cost to himself.

    He came up with the pathetic excuse that he was unable to sell his property when the rule changed, as he was in negative equity.
    Yet he was able to sell it at a loss 11 years after he bought it.
  • Options
    EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,406
    Let's give a simpler example. That those of us who don't have more than 1 home can easily relate to.

    Suppose you are in a job that involves you commuting between places a considerable distance apart. And suppose you are on a Salary of "£X plus a company car".

    Now suppose that, up until recently, you can use your own car instead. And you used to receive a mileage allowance, free servicing, or whatever. But now the Rules have changed.

    You have 2 choices. A fully expensed Company car. Or use your own car, but pay for all your own petrol and running costs.

    You decide you are now having the Company car. And let someone else use your own car for everyday use. As indeed does everyone else who previously used their own vehicle

    How would you feel if someone wrote an article saying you are ripping off your Employer?
  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,618
    Essexphil said:

    Let's give a simpler example. That those of us who don't have more than 1 home can easily relate to.

    Suppose you are in a job that involves you commuting between places a considerable distance apart. And suppose you are on a Salary of "£X plus a company car".

    Now suppose that, up until recently, you can use your own car instead. And you used to receive a mileage allowance, free servicing, or whatever. But now the Rules have changed.

    You have 2 choices. A fully expensed Company car. Or use your own car, but pay for all your own petrol and running costs.

    You decide you are now having the Company car. And let someone else use your own car for everyday use. As indeed does everyone else who previously used their own vehicle

    How would you feel if someone wrote an article saying you are ripping off your Employer?

    Your argument is getting more ridiculous.
    This is what happened.
    He bought a house in his constituency.
    He claimed the interest on his mortgage back via expenses, as per the rules.
    They were given notice that the rules would change.
    They were not allowed to reclaim mortgage interest in future, but they were able to reclaim rent.
    An honest person is faced with a choice at this point.
    Either to continue as they were, and pay the mortgage themselves, on the basis they would own an appreciating asset.
    Or if they couldnt afford to pay the mortgage, they could sell the house and rent an alternative property.
    As they would have to pay the mortgage anyway, until the property was sold you would surely expect them to to live in it until then.
    The purpose of the rule change was to stop what he actually attempted to do.
    Although the plan backfired because he apparently lost money on the house when he sold it.
    I find that bit incredible.

    It is the penny and the bun bit that people will find dishonest.
    And attempting to do exactly what the rule change set out to prevent.
    Coincidentally it was one month before the rule change that he decided to rent his own home out, and rent next door.

  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,618
    Essexphil said:

    Let's give a simpler example. That those of us who don't have more than 1 home can easily relate to.

    I think it is quite easy to relate to the choice he was faced with.

    Suppose you are in a job that involves you commuting between places a considerable distance apart. And suppose you are on a Salary of "£X plus a company car".

    Been there.

    Now suppose that, up until recently, you can use your own car instead. And you used to receive a mileage allowance, free servicing, or whatever. But now the Rules have changed.

    This is not a rule change, it is a job change.
    An employer that provided you with a company car is unlikely to allow you to use your own car, and then pay you an inflated mileage allowance, rather than just petrol for the company car.
    They are also unlikely to pay for servicing, repairs, and tyres etc, on both cars.


    You have 2 choices. A fully expensed Company car. Or use your own car, but pay for all your own petrol and running costs.

    You dont.
    What would you do?
    Leave the company car parked on your drive, and use your own car?
    There are also income tax considerations.



    You decide you are now having the Company car. And let someone else use your own car for everyday use. As indeed does everyone else who previously used their own vehicle

    In the vast majority of cases you would sell your own car.
    Which I did in these exact circumstances.


    How would you feel if someone wrote an article saying you are ripping off your Employer?

    How are you ripping off your employer?
    If your job provided a company car, it is irrelevant what you did with your car.
    There would be no cost to your employer, whatever you did with it.


  • Options
    EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,406
    edited May 16
    You claim it is easy to understand.

    And then you fail to understand it.

    I have dealt with thousands of Companies in relation to company cars. And let me assure you lots give enhanced mileage allowances to take account of true running costs. Simply because it is very easy to ascertain the true running costs per mile. Because it is more than just petrol.

    I have also dealt with various companies that have changed the rules effectively to stop people using their own cars. That's not a job change-although it is a change to the terms and conditions.

    The exact point I am making is that telling people they cannot use their own "house" any more is exactly the same as cannot use own "car" any more. People make adjustments to maximise their effective take home.

    You manage to simultaneously claim my point is "ridiculous" and prove it at the same time.

    You're not ripping off your employer. For exactly the same reasons as MPs are not.

    The Rules were changed to allow them to claim Rent on constituency residences, but not Mortgage. So they claimed Rent.

    The end.
  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,618
    Essexphil said:

    You claim it is easy to understand.

    And then you fail to understand it.

    I have dealt with thousands of Companies in relation to company cars. And let me assure you lots give enhanced mileage allowances to take account of true running costs. Simply because it is very easy to ascertain the true running costs per mile. Because it is more than just petrol.

    I have also dealt with various companies that have changed the rules effectively to stop people using their own cars. That's not a job change-although it is a change to the terms and conditions.

    The exact point I am making is that telling people they cannot use their own "house" any more is exactly the same as cannot use own "car" any more. People make adjustments to maximise their effective take home.

    You manage to simultaneously claim my point is "ridiculous" and prove it at the same time.

    You're not ripping off your employer. For exactly the same reasons as MPs are not.

    The Rules were changed to allow them to claim Rent on constituency residences, but not Mortgage. So they claimed Rent.

    The end.

    More ridiculousness.
    I am well aware of the rules surrounding company cars.
    I have been through them in great detail with HMRC.
    At a cost of around 25k.
    This stemmed from my employer allowing me to choose to use my own car, and then paying for petrol, servicing, repairs, tyres, etc, and not a mileage allowance.
    Fortunately for me he agreed to return the 25k.

    Nobody said that he couldnt use the house that he owned.
    How could they?
    They just stopped paying the mortgage interest.

    What you cant seem to grasp is that the rule change was to prevent what he actually did.
  • Options
    EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,406
    edited May 16
    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    You claim it is easy to understand.

    And then you fail to understand it.

    I have dealt with thousands of Companies in relation to company cars. And let me assure you lots give enhanced mileage allowances to take account of true running costs. Simply because it is very easy to ascertain the true running costs per mile. Because it is more than just petrol.

    I have also dealt with various companies that have changed the rules effectively to stop people using their own cars. That's not a job change-although it is a change to the terms and conditions.

    The exact point I am making is that telling people they cannot use their own "house" any more is exactly the same as cannot use own "car" any more. People make adjustments to maximise their effective take home.

    You manage to simultaneously claim my point is "ridiculous" and prove it at the same time.

    You're not ripping off your employer. For exactly the same reasons as MPs are not.

    The Rules were changed to allow them to claim Rent on constituency residences, but not Mortgage. So they claimed Rent.

    The end.

    More ridiculousness.
    I am well aware of the rules surrounding company cars.
    I have been through them in great detail with HMRC.
    At a cost of around 25k.
    This stemmed from my employer allowing me to choose to use my own car, and then paying for petrol, servicing, repairs, tyres, etc, and not a mileage allowance.
    Fortunately for me he agreed to return the 25k.

    Nobody said that he couldnt use the house that he owned.
    How could they?
    They just stopped paying the mortgage interest.

    What you cant seem to grasp is that the rule change was to prevent what he actually did.
    That's just not true.

    The Rule change was purely to stop payments for Investments in a Property portfolio, as opposed to Rent.

    I don't profess to be an expert on the IPSA Rules. But you appear to be claiming you understand the IPSA Rules better than IPSA
  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,618
    Essexphil said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    You claim it is easy to understand.

    And then you fail to understand it.

    I have dealt with thousands of Companies in relation to company cars. And let me assure you lots give enhanced mileage allowances to take account of true running costs. Simply because it is very easy to ascertain the true running costs per mile. Because it is more than just petrol.

    I have also dealt with various companies that have changed the rules effectively to stop people using their own cars. That's not a job change-although it is a change to the terms and conditions.

    The exact point I am making is that telling people they cannot use their own "house" any more is exactly the same as cannot use own "car" any more. People make adjustments to maximise their effective take home.

    You manage to simultaneously claim my point is "ridiculous" and prove it at the same time.

    You're not ripping off your employer. For exactly the same reasons as MPs are not.

    The Rules were changed to allow them to claim Rent on constituency residences, but not Mortgage. So they claimed Rent.

    The end.

    More ridiculousness.
    I am well aware of the rules surrounding company cars.
    I have been through them in great detail with HMRC.
    At a cost of around 25k.
    This stemmed from my employer allowing me to choose to use my own car, and then paying for petrol, servicing, repairs, tyres, etc, and not a mileage allowance.
    Fortunately for me he agreed to return the 25k.

    Nobody said that he couldnt use the house that he owned.
    How could they?
    They just stopped paying the mortgage interest.

    What you cant seem to grasp is that the rule change was to prevent what he actually did.
    That's just not true.

    The Rule change was purely to stop payments for Investments in a Property portfolio, as opposed to Rent.

    I don't profess to be an expert on the IPSA Rules. But you appear to be claiming you understand the IPSA Rules better than IPSA
    I am not saying that I understand any rules.
    I have said throughout that the rule change was to prevent MPs from building a property portfolio via their expenses.
    Although this is exactly what he did.
    He moved from a house he owned to next door.
    He retained the house he owned, and rented it out.
    He claimed rent for the property next door.
    He was therefore building a property portfolio using the rent to cover his mortgage, and claiming the rent for next door.
    It is probably a telling factor that there arent large numbers of other MPs accused of doing the same thing.
    Why do you think that is?
  • Options
    EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,406
    edited May 16
    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    You claim it is easy to understand.

    And then you fail to understand it.

    I have dealt with thousands of Companies in relation to company cars. And let me assure you lots give enhanced mileage allowances to take account of true running costs. Simply because it is very easy to ascertain the true running costs per mile. Because it is more than just petrol.

    I have also dealt with various companies that have changed the rules effectively to stop people using their own cars. That's not a job change-although it is a change to the terms and conditions.

    The exact point I am making is that telling people they cannot use their own "house" any more is exactly the same as cannot use own "car" any more. People make adjustments to maximise their effective take home.

    You manage to simultaneously claim my point is "ridiculous" and prove it at the same time.

    You're not ripping off your employer. For exactly the same reasons as MPs are not.

    The Rules were changed to allow them to claim Rent on constituency residences, but not Mortgage. So they claimed Rent.

    The end.

    More ridiculousness.
    I am well aware of the rules surrounding company cars.
    I have been through them in great detail with HMRC.
    At a cost of around 25k.
    This stemmed from my employer allowing me to choose to use my own car, and then paying for petrol, servicing, repairs, tyres, etc, and not a mileage allowance.
    Fortunately for me he agreed to return the 25k.

    Nobody said that he couldnt use the house that he owned.
    How could they?
    They just stopped paying the mortgage interest.

    What you cant seem to grasp is that the rule change was to prevent what he actually did.
    That's just not true.

    The Rule change was purely to stop payments for Investments in a Property portfolio, as opposed to Rent.

    I don't profess to be an expert on the IPSA Rules. But you appear to be claiming you understand the IPSA Rules better than IPSA
    I am not saying that I understand any rules.
    I have said throughout that the rule change was to prevent MPs from building a property portfolio via their expenses.
    Although this is exactly what he did.
    He moved from a house he owned to next door.
    He retained the house he owned, and rented it out.
    He claimed rent for the property next door.
    He was therefore building a property portfolio using the rent to cover his mortgage, and claiming the rent for next door.
    It is probably a telling factor that there arent large numbers of other MPs accused of doing the same thing.
    Why do you think that is?
    Because it is the Telegraph.

    Here is the BBC reporting on this in 2021.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59259342

    Or the Independent:-

    https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/mps-claim-millions-from-taxpayer-while-letting-out-their-own-london-homes-300961/

    Particularly note the bit where IPSA said it was perfectly legal...
    And the bit that said 13 of the 15 were Conservatives.

    Funny how the Torygraph missed those bits...
  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,618
    edited May 16
    Essexphil said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    You claim it is easy to understand.

    And then you fail to understand it.

    I have dealt with thousands of Companies in relation to company cars. And let me assure you lots give enhanced mileage allowances to take account of true running costs. Simply because it is very easy to ascertain the true running costs per mile. Because it is more than just petrol.

    I have also dealt with various companies that have changed the rules effectively to stop people using their own cars. That's not a job change-although it is a change to the terms and conditions.

    The exact point I am making is that telling people they cannot use their own "house" any more is exactly the same as cannot use own "car" any more. People make adjustments to maximise their effective take home.

    You manage to simultaneously claim my point is "ridiculous" and prove it at the same time.

    You're not ripping off your employer. For exactly the same reasons as MPs are not.

    The Rules were changed to allow them to claim Rent on constituency residences, but not Mortgage. So they claimed Rent.

    The end.

    More ridiculousness.
    I am well aware of the rules surrounding company cars.
    I have been through them in great detail with HMRC.
    At a cost of around 25k.
    This stemmed from my employer allowing me to choose to use my own car, and then paying for petrol, servicing, repairs, tyres, etc, and not a mileage allowance.
    Fortunately for me he agreed to return the 25k.

    Nobody said that he couldnt use the house that he owned.
    How could they?
    They just stopped paying the mortgage interest.

    What you cant seem to grasp is that the rule change was to prevent what he actually did.
    That's just not true.

    The Rule change was purely to stop payments for Investments in a Property portfolio, as opposed to Rent.

    I don't profess to be an expert on the IPSA Rules. But you appear to be claiming you understand the IPSA Rules better than IPSA
    I am not saying that I understand any rules.
    I have said throughout that the rule change was to prevent MPs from building a property portfolio via their expenses.
    Although this is exactly what he did.
    He moved from a house he owned to next door.
    He retained the house he owned, and rented it out.
    He claimed rent for the property next door.
    He was therefore building a property portfolio using the rent to cover his mortgage, and claiming the rent for next door.
    It is probably a telling factor that there arent large numbers of other MPs accused of doing the same thing.
    Why do you think that is?
    Because it is the Telegraph.

    Here is the BBC reporting on this in 2021.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59259342

    Or the Independent:-

    https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/mps-claim-millions-from-taxpayer-while-letting-out-their-own-london-homes-300961/

    Particularly note the bit where IPSA said it was perfectly legal...
    And the bit that said 13 of the 15 were Conservatives.

    Funny how the Torygraph missed those bits...
    I have not said it was illegal.
    In fact I explicitly said a number of times that he had not broken any rules.
    That still doesnt make it right.

    North Thanet MP Sir Roger was asked about the set-up on Times Radio.

    He said: “Well, I think the situation that you’ve described if it is correct, is plain wrong. It’s wholly maybe within the regulations, but it’s wholly against the spirit of what is happening.

    But senior Conservative MP Sir Roger Gale said it is “plain wrong” for colleagues to be earning money as landlords of properties they own in London, while also taking taxpayers’ cash to pay their own rent.
  • Options
    HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 33,618
    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    You claim it is easy to understand.

    And then you fail to understand it.

    I have dealt with thousands of Companies in relation to company cars. And let me assure you lots give enhanced mileage allowances to take account of true running costs. Simply because it is very easy to ascertain the true running costs per mile. Because it is more than just petrol.

    I have also dealt with various companies that have changed the rules effectively to stop people using their own cars. That's not a job change-although it is a change to the terms and conditions.

    The exact point I am making is that telling people they cannot use their own "house" any more is exactly the same as cannot use own "car" any more. People make adjustments to maximise their effective take home.

    You manage to simultaneously claim my point is "ridiculous" and prove it at the same time.

    You're not ripping off your employer. For exactly the same reasons as MPs are not.

    The Rules were changed to allow them to claim Rent on constituency residences, but not Mortgage. So they claimed Rent.

    The end.

    More ridiculousness.
    I am well aware of the rules surrounding company cars.
    I have been through them in great detail with HMRC.
    At a cost of around 25k.
    This stemmed from my employer allowing me to choose to use my own car, and then paying for petrol, servicing, repairs, tyres, etc, and not a mileage allowance.
    Fortunately for me he agreed to return the 25k.

    Nobody said that he couldnt use the house that he owned.
    How could they?
    They just stopped paying the mortgage interest.

    What you cant seem to grasp is that the rule change was to prevent what he actually did.
    That's just not true.

    The Rule change was purely to stop payments for Investments in a Property portfolio, as opposed to Rent.

    I don't profess to be an expert on the IPSA Rules. But you appear to be claiming you understand the IPSA Rules better than IPSA
    I am not saying that I understand any rules.
    I have said throughout that the rule change was to prevent MPs from building a property portfolio via their expenses.
    Although this is exactly what he did.
    He moved from a house he owned to next door.
    He retained the house he owned, and rented it out.
    He claimed rent for the property next door.
    He was therefore building a property portfolio using the rent to cover his mortgage, and claiming the rent for next door.
    It is probably a telling factor that there arent large numbers of other MPs accused of doing the same thing.
    Why do you think that is?
    Because it is the Telegraph.

    Here is the BBC reporting on this in 2021.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59259342

    Or the Independent:-

    https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/mps-claim-millions-from-taxpayer-while-letting-out-their-own-london-homes-300961/

    Particularly note the bit where IPSA said it was perfectly legal...
    And the bit that said 13 of the 15 were Conservatives.

    Funny how the Torygraph missed those bits...
    I have not said it was illegal.
    In fact I explicitly said a number of times that he had not broken any rules.
    That still doesnt make it right.

    North Thanet MP Sir Roger was asked about the set-up on Times Radio.

    He said: “Well, I think the situation that you’ve described if it is correct, is plain wrong. It’s wholly maybe within the regulations, but it’s wholly against the spirit of what is happening.

    But senior Conservative MP Sir Roger Gale said it is “plain wrong” for colleagues to be earning money as landlords of properties they own in London, while also taking taxpayers’ cash to pay their own rent.
    There is no suggestion the MPs letting properties have broken any rules.

    But, asked about the situation, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: "All those sorts of things have got to be properly looked into by the [Parliamentary] Commissioner for Standards."

    But Conservative Sir Peter Bottomley, the longest-serving MP in the Commons, told the Guardian, external the current rules had created a loophole which needed to be dealt with by all political parties working together.
  • Options
    lucy4lucy4 Member Posts: 7,419
    I do like reading a battle of opinions between a couple of forum heavyweights (though I don't know who is Usyk or Fury) unless someone throws a headbutt :D But I think what's needed here is a couple of @Doubleme 's Winni's to really engage the forum.
Sign In or Register to comment.