50 signatures reached
To: Parliamentary standards committee
MPs to loose second home allowance
MPs do not spend all their time in London, specifically if they are not a Government minister
Rather than giving allowances for a second home, they should be housed in hostel type accommodation saving the people who pay their wages and expenses, significant amounts of money
Rather than giving allowances for a second home, they should be housed in hostel type accommodation saving the people who pay their wages and expenses, significant amounts of money
Why is this important?
The government of the United kingdom are claiming hard times are ahead with the public purse
As elected officials, members of parliament are in a way, community leaders and a good leader leads by example - rather than saying "do as I say" it should be more "do as I do"
The argument that Members of Parliament (MPs) do not need a second home paid for by taxpayers is based on several key points:
1. **High Pay and Allowances**:
MPs receive a substantial salary, which is often far above the national average.
Additionally, they receive generous allowances for travel and other expenses.
These financial benefits should be sufficient to cover accommodation costs without requiring additional taxpayer funding for a second home.
2. **Accessibility and Modern Technology**:
Advances in transportation and communication mean that MPs can travel more easily and work remotely.
With the availability of virtual meetings and telecommuting, MPs can perform many of their duties without needing to stay near Parliament on a constant basis.
3. **Public Perception and Accountability**:
Using taxpayer money to fund second homes can create a perception of privilege and disconnect between MPs and the public.
It can erode public trust, especially when many citizens face housing challenges and cost-of-living pressures.
Ensuring that MPs are responsible for their own accommodation costs could improve transparency and accountability.
4. **Alternative Solutions**:
If there is a legitimate need for MPs to stay near Parliament, alternative arrangements could be made, such as providing a more modest shared accommodation or short-term rental subsidies, rather than fully funding private second homes.
This would reduce the cost burden on taxpayers.
5. **Inefficiency and Potential for Abuse**:
The current system has, in the past, led to controversies and scandals involving the misuse of housing allowances and claims.
Eliminating the provision of taxpayer-funded second homes could prevent these issues and ensure that public funds are used more efficiently.
These points together form the basis of the argument that MPs should not have second homes paid for by taxpayers, advocating instead for a more responsible and cost-effective approach to supporting MPs in their duties.
As elected officials, members of parliament are in a way, community leaders and a good leader leads by example - rather than saying "do as I say" it should be more "do as I do"
The argument that Members of Parliament (MPs) do not need a second home paid for by taxpayers is based on several key points:
1. **High Pay and Allowances**:
MPs receive a substantial salary, which is often far above the national average.
Additionally, they receive generous allowances for travel and other expenses.
These financial benefits should be sufficient to cover accommodation costs without requiring additional taxpayer funding for a second home.
2. **Accessibility and Modern Technology**:
Advances in transportation and communication mean that MPs can travel more easily and work remotely.
With the availability of virtual meetings and telecommuting, MPs can perform many of their duties without needing to stay near Parliament on a constant basis.
3. **Public Perception and Accountability**:
Using taxpayer money to fund second homes can create a perception of privilege and disconnect between MPs and the public.
It can erode public trust, especially when many citizens face housing challenges and cost-of-living pressures.
Ensuring that MPs are responsible for their own accommodation costs could improve transparency and accountability.
4. **Alternative Solutions**:
If there is a legitimate need for MPs to stay near Parliament, alternative arrangements could be made, such as providing a more modest shared accommodation or short-term rental subsidies, rather than fully funding private second homes.
This would reduce the cost burden on taxpayers.
5. **Inefficiency and Potential for Abuse**:
The current system has, in the past, led to controversies and scandals involving the misuse of housing allowances and claims.
Eliminating the provision of taxpayer-funded second homes could prevent these issues and ensure that public funds are used more efficiently.
These points together form the basis of the argument that MPs should not have second homes paid for by taxpayers, advocating instead for a more responsible and cost-effective approach to supporting MPs in their duties.
How it will be delivered
In person and online
