More troughing and hypocrisy: this time from labours leadership contender

Labour leadership favourite Andy Burnham in expenses row over claiming £17,000 a year to rent London flat - despite having his own nearby

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3095142/Labour-leadership-favourite-Andy-Burnham-slammed-claiming-17-000-year-rent-London-flat-despite-owning-nearby.html#ixzz3b5mFXfri
---


not only is he renting out his own property which is in walking distance of parliament he is then claiming £17000 a year to rent another place.

of course this arrangement does not break any rules, which once again shows the rules are wrong and need changing immediately.

he is doing this just to get around the rules that say the taxpayer cannot fund his mortgage. How renting it out and claiming money for rent is not getting the taxpayer to fund the mortgage is something only a politician could argue with a straight face.
the government needs to change this loophole immediately.

the fact is Burnham is little more than one of those hated buy to let landlords that labour and their supporters rant about so often.

He is doing this because the rules were changed which stopped the tax payer paying his mortgage.
I am sure there will be nothing but condemnation for this massive hypocrite and total "tristram"

#AndyBurnham #trougher

Even if it's not against the rules, you'd think these people would understand the spirit of the rules really.

Andy Burnham for prime minister

Why does he need to be within walking distance of Westminster? Does he not know about the tube trains?

Raggamuffin wrote:Why does he need to be within walking distance of Westminster? Does he not know about the tube trains?

it is the flat he is renting out that is within walking distance of the HOC. and yes you are right, it may be within the rules, but certainly not within the spirit of the rules.

once again it seems that common sense was not applied when the rules were changed after the expenses scandal was exposed. If an MP wants a second home then by all means let them pay for it like the rest of us.

there is no justification for the taxpayer funding their homes, no matter where they are.

Too many of them in all parties see the taxpayer as some sort of golden goose to be taken for a ride again and again.

I have worked away from home before and the best I could get was £25 a day in expenses to cover food and accommodation, and my wages were a lot less than the basic MP wage of £67000.

Nems wrote:Andy Burnham for prime minister

yes I certainly hope this does not affect his leadership bid, as having him leading the labour party is an absolute gift to the tories. Dr death and now troughing

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why does he need to be within walking distance of Westminster? Does he not know about the tube trains?

it is the flat he is renting out that is within walking distance of the HOC. and yes you are right, it may be within the rules, but certainly not within the spirit of the rules.

once again it seems that common sense was not applied when the rules were changed after the expenses scandal was exposed. If an MP wants a second home then by all means let them pay for it like the rest of us.

there is no justification for the taxpayer funding their homes, no matter where they are.  

Too many of them in all parties see the taxpayer as some sort of golden goose to be taken for a ride again and again.

I have worked away from home before and the best I could get was £25 a day in expenses to cover food and accommodation, and my wages were a lot less than the basic MP wage of £67000.

The flat he bought is within walking distance of Westminster as well isn't it? He doesn't need to be so close - other people have to travel to work. He should have got a cheaper one if he can't afford it. It's absurd that he's claiming so much in rent, and he should be told to get somewhere cheaper.

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
it is the flat he is renting out that is within walking distance of the HOC. and yes you are right, it may be within the rules, but certainly not within the spirit of the rules.

once again it seems that common sense was not applied when the rules were changed after the expenses scandal was exposed. If an MP wants a second home then by all means let them pay for it like the rest of us.

there is no justification for the taxpayer funding their homes, no matter where they are.  

Too many of them in all parties see the taxpayer as some sort of golden goose to be taken for a ride again and again.

I have worked away from home before and the best I could get was £25 a day in expenses to cover food and accommodation, and my wages were a lot less than the basic MP wage of £67000.

The flat he bought is within walking distance of Westminster as well isn't it? He doesn't need to be so close - other people have to travel to work. He should have got a cheaper one if he can't afford it. It's absurd that he's claiming so much in rent, and he should be told to get somewhere cheaper.

well as he owns a flat in walking distance he does not need to rent one as well. I cannot see why any MP within 60 miles of the HOC needs a second home in the capitol. I used to commute from the west country to london every day and could be there in 1hr 20mins. I have also commuted more than 70 miles each way a day by driving, in past jobs. Its not like MP's need to be there by 8am or anything is it. the closest job I ever had was a 25 miles trip each way.

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
it is the flat he is renting out that is within walking distance of the HOC. and yes you are right, it may be within the rules, but certainly not within the spirit of the rules.

once again it seems that common sense was not applied when the rules were changed after the expenses scandal was exposed. If an MP wants a second home then by all means let them pay for it like the rest of us.

there is no justification for the taxpayer funding their homes, no matter where they are.  

Too many of them in all parties see the taxpayer as some sort of golden goose to be taken for a ride again and again.

I have worked away from home before and the best I could get was £25 a day in expenses to cover food and accommodation, and my wages were a lot less than the basic MP wage of £67000.

The flat he bought is within walking distance of Westminster as well isn't it? He doesn't need to be so close - other people have to travel to work. He should have got a cheaper one if he can't afford it. It's absurd that he's claiming so much in rent, and he should be told to get somewhere cheaper.

because when a vote is held in the house they have to get there as soon a possible before the doors a locked
its called the division bell
The bell is used in the immediate neighbourhood of Palace of Westminster (which houses Parliament) to signal that a division is occurring and that members of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords have eight minutes to get to their chosen Division Lobby to vote for or against the resolution.

they was a very interesting documentary about Inside the Commons explains a lot of the workings inside the house

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuIneccZ76w

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b052r7g4

The Devil, You Know wrote:Labour leadership favourite Andy Burnham in expenses row over claiming £17,000 a year to rent London flat - despite having his own nearby

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3095142/Labour-leadership-favourite-Andy-Burnham-slammed-claiming-17-000-year-rent-London-flat-despite-owning-nearby.html#ixzz3b5mFXfri
---


not only is he renting out his own property which is in walking distance of parliament he is then claiming £17000 a year to rent another place.

of course this arrangement does not break any rules, which once again shows the rules are wrong and need changing immediately.

he is doing this just to get around the rules that say the taxpayer cannot fund his mortgage. How renting it out and claiming money for rent is not getting the taxpayer to fund the mortgage is something only a politician could argue with a straight face.
the government needs to change this loophole immediately.

the fact is Burnham is little more than one of those hated buy to let landlords that labour and their supporters rant about so often.

He is doing this because the rules were changed which stopped the tax payer paying his mortgage.
I am sure there will be nothing but condemnation for this massive hypocrite and total "tristram"

#AndyBurnham #trougher

If as Andy Burnham claims he isn't making any money how can he be troughing?

Maybe he should have been a Tory because the get knighted for claiming expenses for accomodation when their actual home is only around 30 miles from Westminister.

Remember Eric Pickiles car crash night on QT a few yeras ago?

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The flat he bought is within walking distance of Westminster as well isn't it? He doesn't need to be so close - other people have to travel to work. He should have got a cheaper one if he can't afford it. It's absurd that he's claiming so much in rent, and he should be told to get somewhere cheaper.

because when a vote is held in the house they have to get there as soon a possible before the doors a locked  
its called the division bell
The bell is used in the immediate neighbourhood of Palace of Westminster (which houses Parliament) to signal that a division is occurring and that members of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords have eight minutes to get to their chosen Division Lobby to vote for or against the resolution.

What a great excuse. No wonder they don't want the system to be changed.

Irn Bru wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:Labour leadership favourite Andy Burnham in expenses row over claiming £17,000 a year to rent London flat - despite having his own nearby

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3095142/Labour-leadership-favourite-Andy-Burnham-slammed-claiming-17-000-year-rent-London-flat-despite-owning-nearby.html#ixzz3b5mFXfri
---


not only is he renting out his own property which is in walking distance of parliament he is then claiming £17000 a year to rent another place.

of course this arrangement does not break any rules, which once again shows the rules are wrong and need changing immediately.

he is doing this just to get around the rules that say the taxpayer cannot fund his mortgage. How renting it out and claiming money for rent is not getting the taxpayer to fund the mortgage is something only a politician could argue with a straight face.
the government needs to change this loophole immediately.

the fact is Burnham is little more than one of those hated buy to let landlords that labour and their supporters rant about so often.

He is doing this because the rules were changed which stopped the tax payer paying his mortgage.
I am sure there will be nothing but condemnation for this massive hypocrite and total "tristram"

#AndyBurnham #trougher

If as Andy Burnham claims he isn't making any money how can he be troughing?

Maybe he should have been a Tory because the get knighted for claiming expenses for accomodation when their actual home is only around 30 miles from Westminister.

Remember Eric Pickiles car crash night on QT a few yeras ago?

Didn't one MP claim expenses for cushions or something? They're not actually making a profit because they did buy the cushions, but does that make it right?

Usual Labour excuse, " well the tories do it!" So that makes it ok does it?

nicko wrote:Usual Labour excuse,  " well the tories do it!"      So that makes it ok does it?

Yes, that's silly. I'm not concerned about which party does it. All MPs have a duty to minimise the cost to the tax payers, and saying that something is within the rules doesn't really cut it IMO.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The flat he bought is within walking distance of Westminster as well isn't it? He doesn't need to be so close - other people have to travel to work. He should have got a cheaper one if he can't afford it. It's absurd that he's claiming so much in rent, and he should be told to get somewhere cheaper.

because when a vote is held in the house they have to get there as soon a possible before the doors a locked  
its called the division bell
The bell is used in the immediate neighbourhood of Palace of Westminster (which houses Parliament) to signal that a division is occurring and that members of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords have eight minutes to get to their chosen Division Lobby to vote for or against the resolution.

if you are using that as an excuse for him renting out his flat within walking distance of the HOC for one further away it is a bit of an epic fail isn't it.
do you really think they wait at home for the division bell to go off and then rush to the commons?

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
it is the flat he is renting out that is within walking distance of the HOC. and yes you are right, it may be within the rules, but certainly not within the spirit of the rules.

once again it seems that common sense was not applied when the rules were changed after the expenses scandal was exposed. If an MP wants a second home then by all means let them pay for it like the rest of us.

there is no justification for the taxpayer funding their homes, no matter where they are.  

Too many of them in all parties see the taxpayer as some sort of golden goose to be taken for a ride again and again.

I have worked away from home before and the best I could get was £25 a day in expenses to cover food and accommodation, and my wages were a lot less than the basic MP wage of £67000.

The flat he bought is within walking distance of Westminster as well isn't it? He doesn't need to be so close - other people have to travel to work. He should have got a cheaper one if he can't afford it. It's absurd that he's claiming so much in rent, and he should be told to get somewhere cheaper.

the reason he is claiming rent is because he cannot claim for the mortgage so he is effectively getting the taxpayer to pay his mortgage by being able to rent out the flat.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

If as Andy Burnham claims he isn't making any money how can he be troughing?

Maybe he should have been a Tory because the get knighted for claiming expenses for accomodation when their actual home is only around 30 miles from Westminister.

Remember Eric Pickiles car crash night on QT a few yeras ago?

Didn't one MP claim expenses for cushions or something? They're not actually making a profit because they did buy the cushions, but does that make it right?

MP's of all flavours should not be feathering their own nests with taxpayer funded expenses. Just because it may be "within the rules" does not mean it is right, it rather suggests the rules are wrong.
any MP who's seat is within 70 miles can commute. It's not like they need to be in at 8am like many working people.

those that have to live in the capitol should be required to get the cheapest accommodation available or just like benefits claimants be capped to a fixed figure. I think it is time that MP's were housed in their own accommodation blocks and any that did not want to live there are free to rent their own homes out of their own money.
the olympic village would have been perfect as it has security built in and is only a short river ride to the commons.

Raggamuffin wrote:

nicko wrote:Usual Labour excuse,  " well the tories do it!"      So that makes it ok does it?

Yes, that's silly. I'm not concerned about which party does it. All MPs have a duty to minimise the cost to the tax payers, and saying that something is within the rules doesn't really cut it IMO.

it has ever been the mantra of the trougher.
the rules need changing obviously, and not by people involved with the old boys network. I am sure a peoples panel could set very adequate expenses rules that would be fair, and seen to be fair.

Irn Bru wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:Labour leadership favourite Andy Burnham in expenses row over claiming £17,000 a year to rent London flat - despite having his own nearby

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3095142/Labour-leadership-favourite-Andy-Burnham-slammed-claiming-17-000-year-rent-London-flat-despite-owning-nearby.html#ixzz3b5mFXfri
---


not only is he renting out his own property which is in walking distance of parliament he is then claiming £17000 a year to rent another place.

of course this arrangement does not break any rules, which once again shows the rules are wrong and need changing immediately.

he is doing this just to get around the rules that say the taxpayer cannot fund his mortgage. How renting it out and claiming money for rent is not getting the taxpayer to fund the mortgage is something only a politician could argue with a straight face.
the government needs to change this loophole immediately.

the fact is Burnham is little more than one of those hated buy to let landlords that labour and their supporters rant about so often.

He is doing this because the rules were changed which stopped the tax payer paying his mortgage.
I am sure there will be nothing but condemnation for this massive hypocrite and total "tristram"

#AndyBurnham #trougher

If as Andy Burnham claims he isn't making any money how can he be troughing?

Maybe he should have been a Tory because the get knighted for claiming expenses for accomodation when their actual home is only around 30 miles from Westminister.

Remember Eric Pickiles car crash night on QT a few yeras ago?

who's paying his mortgage? the person renting his flat.
How can he rent his flat out? because he is getting the taxpayer to pick up the bill for renting him another property.
You may not be able to see the link there but then those red tinted glasses do make clear vision hard

Nems wrote:Andy Burnham for prime minister

I think all tories are hoping for that outcome

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:


Didn't one MP claim expenses for cushions or something? They're not actually making a profit because they did buy the cushions, but does that make it right?

MP's of all flavours should not be feathering their own nests with taxpayer funded expenses. Just because it may be "within the rules" does not mean it is right, it rather suggests the rules are wrong.
any MP who's seat is within 70 miles can commute. It's not like they need to be in at 8am like many working people.

those that have to live in the capitol should be required to get the cheapest accommodation available or just like benefits claimants be capped to a fixed figure. I think it is time that MP's were housed in their own accommodation blocks and any that did not want to live there are free to rent their own homes out of their own money.
the olympic village would have been perfect as it has security built in and is only a short river ride to the commons.

I agree with you.

They shouldn't be charging the tax payers for "refurbishment" either. If they buy a flat which needs work doing, they should pay for it themselves.

What happens if they cease to be a MP and they still own a flat for which they claimed expenses?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
it is the flat he is renting out that is within walking distance of the HOC. and yes you are right, it may be within the rules, but certainly not within the spirit of the rules.

once again it seems that common sense was not applied when the rules were changed after the expenses scandal was exposed. If an MP wants a second home then by all means let them pay for it like the rest of us.

there is no justification for the taxpayer funding their homes, no matter where they are.  

Too many of them in all parties see the taxpayer as some sort of golden goose to be taken for a ride again and again.

I have worked away from home before and the best I could get was £25 a day in expenses to cover food and accommodation, and my wages were a lot less than the basic MP wage of £67000.

The flat he bought is within walking distance of Westminster as well isn't it? He doesn't need to be so close - other people have to travel to work. He should have got a cheaper one if he can't afford it. It's absurd that he's claiming so much in rent, and he should be told to get somewhere cheaper.

well as he owns a flat in walking distance he does not need to rent one as well. I cannot see why any MP within 60 miles of the HOC needs a second home in the capitol. I used to commute from the west country to london every day and could be there in 1hr 20mins. I have also commuted more than 70 miles each way a day by driving, in past jobs. Its not like MP's need to be there by 8am or anything is it. the closest job I ever had was a 25 miles trip each way.

This came from a report from Channel4 that 46 MPs which included included 25 Conservatives, 14 Labour, and four from the Liberal Democrats but now that Andy Burnham has decided to go for the Labour leadership the Tory press decide to pick out Burnham and the good little cap doffers and forelock tuggers fall quickly into line.

Andy Burnham isn't making any money out of this and has released a statement showing exactly what he is doing.



So tell me Flap. Why do you have a problem with that?

Regardless of troughing (they all do it, so no point getting worked up on that), Labour should realise after Ed Miliband that they NEED a better frontman if they want to stand a chance. Sad as it seems, looks (inc stature), voice and attitude/ruthlessness are all considered by the public. Hague, Howard, Brown and Miliband failed to tick all boxes and failed to connect with people. It is a shame in this media driven time in our country than this is the case but it appears to be the way of things. Labour need someone bigger, bolder and badder than Burnham.

Sir Keir Starmer, Deputy Dan Jarvis or Tom Wason. Huge groundswell within the party trying to get them to change their minds and stand.

Irn Bru wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
well as he owns a flat in walking distance he does not need to rent one as well. I cannot see why any MP within 60 miles of the HOC needs a second home in the capitol. I used to commute from the west country to london every day and could be there in 1hr 20mins. I have also commuted more than 70 miles each way a day by driving, in past jobs. Its not like MP's need to be there by 8am or anything is it. the closest job I ever had was a 25 miles trip each way.

This came from a report from Channel4 that 46 MPs which included included 25 Conservatives, 14 Labour, and four from the Liberal Democrats but now that Andy Burnham has decided to go for the Labour leadership the Tory press decide to pick out Burnham and the good little cap doffers and forelock tuggers fall quickly into line.

Andy Burnham isn't making any money out of this and has released a statement showing exactly what he is doing.



So tell me Flap. Why do you have a problem with that?

do I have a problem with the taxpayer essentially paying an mp's mortgage, yes I do and I think most taxpayers would. I dont care which party they belong to. they should not be using ploys to get the taxpayer to fund their properties.

if you cant see that he is renting a flat so he can get someone else to pay the mortgage then you are very blinkered.
surely that makes him a buy to let landlord.

he can do that because the taxpayer is funding his rented flat. this is no different from flipping and other tricks MP's of all parties use to fleece the taxpayer.
saying "it's within the rules" just shows the rules are wrong.

so to be clear
NO MP'S SHOULD BE DOING THIS.

why is he highlighted, because he is standing for the leadership of the labour party, obviously.

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
MP's of all flavours should not be feathering their own nests with taxpayer funded expenses. Just because it may be "within the rules" does not mean it is right, it rather suggests the rules are wrong.
any MP who's seat is within 70 miles can commute. It's not like they need to be in at 8am like many working people.

those that have to live in the capitol should be required to get the cheapest accommodation available or just like benefits claimants be capped to a fixed figure. I think it is time that MP's were housed in their own accommodation blocks and any that did not want to live there are free to rent their own homes out of their own money.
the olympic village would have been perfect as it has security built in and is only a short river ride to the commons.

I agree with you.

They shouldn't be charging the tax payers for "refurbishment" either. If they buy a flat which needs work doing, they should pay for it themselves.

What happens if they cease to be a MP and they still own a flat for which they claimed expenses?

there might be a case for a constituency house that passes on to the next MP in that constituency.

Of course any MP is at liberty to buy or rent a flat at their own expense. If they chose to do that then the constituency house could be rented out and the money go to the exchequer.
to many MP's of all parties have fleeced the taxpayer and feather, literally, their own nests.
I cannot understand why left wing people do not see this as a problem.

risingsun wrote:Sir Keir Starmer, Deputy Dan Jarvis or Tom Wason.   Huge groundswell within the party trying to get them to change their minds and stand.

labour will vote on the leader and then len will decide who it is going to be. What Len wants, Len gets

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

This came from a report from Channel4 that 46 MPs which included included 25 Conservatives, 14 Labour, and four from the Liberal Democrats but now that Andy Burnham has decided to go for the Labour leadership the Tory press decide to pick out Burnham and the good little cap doffers and forelock tuggers fall quickly into line.

Andy Burnham isn't making any money out of this and has released a statement showing exactly what he is doing.



So tell me Flap. Why do you have a problem with that?

do I have a problem with the taxpayer essentially paying an mp's mortgage, yes I do and I think most taxpayers would. I dont care which party they belong to. they should not be using ploys to get the taxpayer to fund their properties.

if you cant see that he is renting a flat so he can get someone else to pay the mortgage then you are very blinkered.
surely that makes him a buy to let landlord.

he can do that because the taxpayer is funding his rented flat.  this is no different from flipping and other tricks MP's of all parties use to fleece the taxpayer.
saying "it's within the rules" just shows the rules are wrong.  

so to be clear
NO MP'S SHOULD BE DOING THIS.

why is he highlighted, because he is standing for the leadership of the labour party, obviously.

And he'll sell the flat for a profit later on no doubt.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
well as he owns a flat in walking distance he does not need to rent one as well. I cannot see why any MP within 60 miles of the HOC needs a second home in the capitol. I used to commute from the west country to london every day and could be there in 1hr 20mins. I have also commuted more than 70 miles each way a day by driving, in past jobs. Its not like MP's need to be there by 8am or anything is it. the closest job I ever had was a 25 miles trip each way.

This came from a report from Channel4 that 46 MPs which included included 25 Conservatives, 14 Labour, and four from the Liberal Democrats but now that Andy Burnham has decided to go for the Labour leadership the Tory press decide to pick out Burnham and the good little cap doffers and forelock tuggers fall quickly into line.

Andy Burnham isn't making any money out of this and has released a statement showing exactly what he is doing.



So tell me Flap. Why do you have a problem with that?

do I have a problem with the taxpayer essentially paying an mp's mortgage, yes I do and I think most taxpayers would. I dont care which party they belong to. they should not be using ploys to get the taxpayer to fund their properties.

if you cant see that he is renting a flat so he can get someone else to pay the mortgage then you are very blinkered.
surely that makes him a buy to let landlord.

he can do that because the taxpayer is funding his rented flat.  this is no different from flipping and other tricks MP's of all parties use to fleece the taxpayer.
saying "it's within the rules" just shows the rules are wrong.  

so to be clear
NO MP'S SHOULD BE DOING THIS.

why is he highlighted, because he is standing for the leadership of the labour party, obviously.

Andy Burnham bought his own flat in London and never asked the treasury to pay his morgage. All he claimed up until the rules were changes was the interest on the morgage which he shouldn't have to fund out of his salary for having to find accomodation to live where he has to do part of his job. When the rules changed he moved into a flat and let out his own and the rent he gets from that he uses to pay the rent on the one he is in now. He still pays his own morgage and the interest on the morgage as well and what he gets back from the treasury in rent barely covers what he has to pay out. However, if you know the difference between what Andy Burnham pays out to maintain the flat he owns and what gets back in rent claimed then please feel free to tell me the figures. And of course Andy Burnham also has to pay a morgage for his own home in Leigh as well.

You are surely not suggesting that MPs from up North, Scotland, Ireland or Wales should have to pay for their accomodation out of their salary when MPs in the South East who live within commuting distance of London get to bank all theirs and who also get a London living allowance top up which other MPs do not.

Yes, Andy Burnham is a target because he is standing for the Labour leadership so I suppose I should be asking you why you haven't started a thread about the mega trougher in David Cameron who was standing for Prime Minister just a short while ago. He lives in a grace and favour home for nothing all paid for by the taxpayer but decided to rent out his Landon home to the tune of £72,000 per annun - over 5 years that's lot of dosh and no doubt covers his morgage on his London home and probably his other home in Whitney. He is the only prime minister ever to take advantage of that - now that's troughing on a massive scale. And of course you do add that you condemn all MPs for troughing but only when challenged and in this case it's down there in the small print and not in the OP.Your a chancer Flap.

And as far as but to rent Landlord's are concerned your one of them. You bought you council flat on the back of a massive taxpayer discount and decided to rent it out and move to another country whilst you get someone else to pay your morgage (benefit claimants?) or recover whatever cash you laid out to buy it. And you do it whilst getting unemployment benefit because a family member works for the government

That's troughinf isn't it - Oh the shame Flap.