MPs were judged to have crossed a line between legitimate parliamentary costs and personal comfort: Yes won with more than four votes in five. The result was decisive, but the debate was less about whether distant constituencies justify a London base than whether taxpayers should keep the meter running.
The floor’s most-respected Yes case cast the issue as a question of political example: “Telling struggling pensioners to wrap up warm while MPs expense £300k in heating bills for their second flats is rank hypocrisy.” Another highly rated voice drew the distinction more tightly: “A second workplace is real. Insulation from the meter is not representation.”
The No case was not a defence of lavish claims so much as an objection to an absolute ban. One voter argued, “I don’t think they should be banned outright,” while another said there was “a strong case for improving transparency” but no compelling reason to exclude energy alone; the two sides were arguing about principle and administration, respectively.
That gap points to a broader governance verdict about expenses: voters here appear to distrust a system seen as opaque, permissive and too easily gamed. Even a Yes supporter who allowed that some costs were defensible said, “There are too many loopholes in MPs expenses,” while another called for bills to be capped against ordinary household norms.
The room did not sound interested in fine distinctions once the question was framed as MPs being insulated from pressures imposed on everyone else. Its clearest demand was not for a different perk, but for fewer special rules.
19 Opinions
Yes !! I, personally, would not call it money grubbing … however 🫣
On top of this, MP's real incomes should be related to the people's median incomes, I reckon.
Maybe deduct the standing charge where a second home is necessary for work. MPs should pay for their own living expenses, including energy bills.
all parliamentary expenses should be linked to median values in the uk. Pay should rise at the same level as pensions. Their bills should be capped at median bill levels, meals, travel and other expenses should be capped at what civil servants can claim. Subsidies for food and drinks should be stopped.
We often get told to use less electricity, water, walk don't drive, not good if you already are doing your best and can't do more. There has been misuse of MPs expenses, which is offensive to the general public. Their wages and expenses are paid from our taxes, so why don't the MPs who live outside London have a room in a hotel? Wouldn't that cost less than buying a home in London? Heat and light would be in the bill. For those living in London, no help with heating.
I don’t think they should be banned outright. The issue is ensuring claims are capped, reasonable, transparent and properly scrutinised.
There are too many loopholes in MPs expenses, providing benefits that HMRC would hammer the rest of us if our employers provided them. Whilst it is defensible that some costs for MPs from constituencies too far from London to commute are covered, the current position is way too favourable and exploitable. Whole MP expense grift needs to be tightened up
This second home @rap gets MPs lots of freebies. Now the migrants are out of all those hotels Its time mps we're put up in them,would free up hundreds of second homes in Londonstan.
Can’t have a Political class who don’t share in woes they cause by inept policies. Not a Climate Emergency - yet Parliament through the execrable Teresa May pushed Net Zero through with no debate. Why do useless boring PMs get paid £100,000s for 40 minute speeches? It’s fraudulent thank you money being recycled. Yes MPs should get expenses but not managed by themselves & the body managing it has to have strong powers. MPs cannot immiserate citizens but get subsidised.
MP should receive a nation-leading pay packet but none of these never-ending perks that are easy to game, not transparent, and just seem seedy.