[michaelt]

While they're in parliament, MPs can expense mortgage payments on a second home.

This isn't entirely unreasonable - it means you can be elected even if you're not already rich enough to own a second home in London as well as your home in your constituency.

But it does have the unfortunate side-effect that rising London house prices put cash in MPs pockets.

What we need is to do away with expense payments and instead give MPs a per diem, based on today's expenses and rising with CPI. That way, keeping a lid on housing, transport and council tax prices will be in their interests.

[DanBC]

MPs get paid over £60,000 per year. If they cannot live on that they need to think about the nurses, teachers, etc who get paid less.

They don't need a second house in London. They do need London accommodation. It is bizarre that millionaire MPs get paid public money in the form of expenses on top of their wages to buy a second home in London.

[michaelt]

I can understand expecting MPs to live in their constituency, and also that they need some London accommodation. If you're proposing it could work like a university halls of residence, I agree with that. My thinking with a per diem is any change would need MPs support, and they'd go for a per diem more easily than a cut in their benefits, however deserved it may be.

The origin of paying MPs was in the Chartist movement [1] - back when MPs were unpaid, no-one who relied on a salary to feed their family could get into parliament; only rich landowners who didn't have to work for their income could afford to be MPs. The intent of paying MPs is to allow working class and middle class people to stand for election.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartism

[collyw]

It is also produces a conflict of interests. If they own two homes, why would they have the incentive to make prices affordable for the general population on normal wages.