PhilThis may be disappointing to you, but she voted:-(a) FOR full and compete registration of financial interests, (b) AGAINST Staff to continue to be employed by MPs(c) FOR Staff to be employees of Parliament(d) FOR MPs' expenses — No lower limit for declarationI understand the proporsals to replace (many of the most controversial of) the various allowances with a flat fee based on daily attendance has been the subject of a debate but not yet a vote as the details are not yet worked up. I'ii check on that.That last proposal effectively raises the core salary of an MP so it comprises a salary plus an attendance allowance - it would have been pushing things to go for the simple solution of only incxreasing the basic salary at a time of general hardship. However I think the trend is right. A core salary of say £90k for a Member of Parliament is large enough for them to need no second jobs and them to make their own provision for a London pied-a-terre from which to work during the PArliamentary week, if their main home is in the constituency, or alternatively a constituency pied-a-terr if their main home is in London. There will no longer be mortgage support for buying a second home, so I expect more will just rent. It's easy to criticise those who have two homes, one in close proximity to Parliament and the other still in easy commuting reach of it, but the fact remains that Parliament sits until beyond 10pm and you do not want MPs sloping off to catch the last train/tube when business runs late, or being vulnerable to assault on dark routes home. Also after a long day, some just need to crash.I don't know if the Keens are particularly bad cases on the expenses front. I don't think between them they have claimed for the same expenses twice over. On some areas of expenses she comes over 400th out of 625. Her travel costs claimed are minimal.What structure of salary and expenses would you suggest for a West London MP and would it deter some potential MPs from standing?
Dan Filson ● 6236d