I am very far from being a supporter of Andy Burnham but the criticism of his arrangements viz his flat seem to me entirely misplaced.
The point of the second home allowance is to compensate MPs whose constituency is a given distance from Westminster for costs incurred by dint of their becoming an MP and as a result incurring additional living expenses.
Expecting Andy Burnham to stop renting out his London flat that he has bought personally would cause him additional cost as a result of a loss of rental income and that cannot be right (why should he incur such a cost just because he decided to buy a flat in London whereas any other MP who owns a second home outside of London, or has the equivalent value other forms of investment, does not suffer a cost?).
Indeed he would be entirely within his rights to sell the London flat immediately thus making the entire argument irrelevant.
Indeed he would be entirely within his rights to sell the London flat immediately thus making the entire argument irrelevant.
He could have done it when they changed the rules. But he didn't.
Instead he rents out the expensive capital asset acquired via public funds and accommodates himself down the road funded by the taxpayer. If he sells he gets hit by capital gains tax.
This happens across party lines as a legacy of the expenses scandals and stinks.
The point of the second home allowance is to compensate MPs whose constituency is a given distance from Westminster for costs incurred by dint of their becoming an MP and as a result incurring additional living expenses.
Agreed, so why does he need two properties in London?
What [b]additional[/b] expenses is he incurring?
The system is designed to cover the additional cost of having to live in two different places - If he owned a flat in London and rented one in Leigh, or vice versa, and spent time at both, then nobody would raise an eyebrow, that's what it's for - instead Burnham is living in [u]one[/u] flat for free and renting the other out.
ninfan - Member
What additional expenses is he incurring?The system is designed to cover the additional cost of having to live in two different places - If he owned a flat in London and rented one in Leigh, or vice versa, and spent time at both, then nobody would raise an eyebrow, that's what it's for - instead Burnham is living in one flat for free and renting the other out.
Ok lets consider this you get a new job at a company that requires you to carry out duties at two locations that are beyond commuting distance from each other. You already have a dwelling at one of those locations which you rent out as an investment. Are you saying upon getting this job you should either be forced to sell this property or lose the rent income from it?
why does he need two properties in London?
He does not need two - do you [ or all the other Tories here] have a problem with property ownership all of a sudden
He can only claim rent so he got the second one so he would not be out of pocket on account of his work commitments as he could no longer claim for the mortgage
What he does with his property is his business. It appears the Tories on here want to be all state interventionist and to deny a person the right to own property as its unfair. Have you all undergone an epiphany? In that case welcome aboard comrades
instead Burnham is living in one flat for free and renting the other out.
And?
Even if he sells the other one the State saves not one penny and it costs the state not one penny for him to own two flats or fifty two flats.
What is your point caller?
What is your point caller?
I'm not following either the thread's latest resurrection nor the Telegraph's "story" with regards to Andy Burnham's accommodation arrangements (neither of which grabs me as likely to be interesting) but judging by who the poster is I suspect his point is that Labour politicians are all money-grabbing hypocrites.
While in contrast Tory politicians, of which he is an ardent supporter, are genuine and honest individuals who are selflessly committed to serving others, no matter what the personal cost to themselves is.
Am I right big and daft........is that your point ?
Well, according to Ipsos MORI, Stewart Lewis is in with a shot!
[img] 
[/img]
[url= https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3588/Labour-leadership-race-tight-as-no-candidate-is-able-to-open-up-a-clear-lead.aspx ]Source[/url]
😀
I think it should be Jeremy Corbyn.
I mean love him or hate him he was pretty successful on Top Gear right?
His odds have gone from 100/1 to 12/1 in a couple of days. Even at 12/1 I think he's a good bet. If there is any type of public debate Andy will get flustered and Yvette will bore.
Its all a bit vauxhall conferenece aint it? Or early rounds of the F.A cup and the proper candidates will get involved at a later stage.
Andy Burnham SHOULD be the Leader but it'll be Yvette Cooper. All the warmth of a house without a roof on a rainy winter day.
£3 to get a vote I read. I'm tempted.
Might as well then you can complain about how corrupt it all was and blame the unions anyway. On reflection that view is to credible for you to try 😈 but I am sure you will be correct whatever you say 😛 [ ok enough I know- Must be pleased with Harry re footy?]
It says something about this whole leadership election/state of the labour party that the RW of STW are more interested than the left wing.
Happy Friday. Have a good weekend 🙂
There was an article in the Telegraph suggesting people register and vote for the lefty to consign Labour to the electoral wilderness forever.
My money is on Yvette Cooper as well. Blair hollowed out the labour party so thoroughly, that they're actually terrified to look outside their old Islington cabal/comfort zone inner circle.
Despite this exact cabal being about as appealing to the electorate as a bucket of cold sick with a huge floater on the top.
They will then go on to re-fight the last election in 5 years time, as cluelessly as they did last time
They can't go with a male/male leader/deputy ticket (apparently) and as Tom Watson is in the lead on the deputy side of things then Burnham might find himself on the wrong side of the gender divide.
I think that Andy Burnhams problem will be that he is a scouser.
Nowt wrong with that, however, I dont think the rest of the UK will take to him as a leader. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that he will be a turn off for the southern middle of the road voters.
Personally I would have preferred Chuka.
Temp leader - while they assess the lay of the land and work out how to re-position themselves. It would be interested if the Jurassic option came off though.
The pressure to choose a woman will be overpowering - so Liz or Yvette. £ on Liz at the moment...
jambalaya - Member
Happy Friday. Have a good weekendThere was an article in the Telegraph suggesting people register and vote for the lefty to consign Labour to the electoral wilderness forever.
Hope everyone does this! I think Labour need a left wing leader. This trying to as close as possible but marginally to the left of the Tories is doomed to failure in opposition. The Labour party should be trying to pull the Tories to the left not just standing on the left of them trying to look prettier.
I think they should choose a leader to further left ...
I like Chuka or Mrs Balls for more entertainment.
Andy Burnhams will be so boring I thought he was an insurance salesman.
Liz Kendall should up her entertainment value a bit more as she is still an unknown entertainer.
Nine whole pages - I'm amazed that many people care.
Hope everyone does this! I think Labour need a left wing leader. This trying to as close as possible but marginally to the left of the Tories is doomed to failure in opposition. The Labour party should be trying to pull the Tories to the left not just standing on the left of them trying to look prettier.
Out of interest, how well has a left wing leadership/ policy base worked out for Labour in the past?
Burnham will be popular in Stafford
Have we done this buy a vote thing.
3 quid ?
Advertised in the papers ??
Did the Labour party not see this ... (looks like binner and his pals were busy)
It doesn't seem right to me
Anyone care to explain their thinking
Out of interest, how well has a left wing leadership/ policy base worked out for Labour in the past?
A lot better up here than recent leadership/policy.
The hilarious part is that if the "joke" did get elected it would probably make Labour just about electable up here again, wonder how they would square that one away? A party that's actually distinct from the other two? NEVER!
Oh well, never mind, we have higher priorities making sure Mattheson doesn't get anywhere near deputy.
