Comedy Genius

'Sir' Nicholas Winterton, who has already made an arse of himself with his fellow-MP wife over renting his own property, has, as I'm sure you've heard by now, said that MPs 'need' to travel first-class

Guido's already picked it up, and I don't really need to have a rant (did that in the car..) but I heard it live and it was brilliant, particularly as he was on to discuss the Falklands..

But what I do want to say is that Stephen Nolan has been brilliant the last few days, he's been covering Victoria Derbyshire this week and he's turned the slot into a Paxman-esque grilling of politicians, far more fun, I wish he'd stay, Victoria is alright, but she wouldn't get him to announce that MPs are a different type of people (although knowing Sir Nick...)

I would like to address a few issues, however

Why exactly was it fair to pay rent for a property he already owned? How is that justified, even if it's an 'allowance' not 'expenses' - that's taking all you can get regardless

Secondly he said you can't get a seat in standard class, that would only apply to rush hour, but he also said children travel in standard class - I've never experienced children in rush hour, at 7am there are no seats, but also no kids

Furthermore, he's from Macclesfield and has a London flat...so he's not a commuter and wouldn't even be on a train in rush hour...hence he experiences noisy children in standard, and hence there would be seats available

I am reminded of that train ad that suggests you go by train (standard class) to get some much-needed work done rather than having to drive...apparently not MPs

I also found this from his local paper 

And I drive with my wife to and from London, which is vastly cheaper than the train, and I also subsidise my travel with my salary." (April 2009)

So when the hell is he claiming for first class travel?? He claims 6 grand on it, not a low figure - he says he's cheap but that's overall and down to an incredibly stingy office budget - generally I'd say office budgets are far more beneficial to the public, and they don't go on the individual but staff and costs

This also raises the issue of MPs standing down - why should we be subject to this sort of behaviour? Because he's not going for re-election he can do absolutely anything, he might as well start waving a Nazi flag around for four or five years, MPs should be subject to some sort of scrutiny, not given five years of complete freedom, perhaps we need a power of recall in these cases

The vast majority...

'...Have done nothing wrong'

That's what they've been saying all along...'it was a minority', 'not all politicians are corrupt...' etc etc

While it's true that not all politicians have been bad, we cynics have always said it was the minority who actually behaved themselves, a quick look at the claims will tell you that

Do you think we can get an apology now that 390, which is more than 50% of MPs (I do understand if most of them don't know what a 'majority' means) have been asked to repay money?

A Parliament of liars, by liars, for liars

Denis MacShane's ridiculous article in the Indie has to be given some prominence

it.is.complete.bollocks

I seriously can't believe the Indie would allow such partisan rubbish on it's pages - they may be extreme on climate change and some leftie stuff but this is really Mirror territory and won't go down well with anyone with a shred of intelligence

Once again, the issue of renting has been ignored:

If Labour MPs have to stay in boarding houses while Tory MPs retire to their Notting Hill homes, so be it.

Right...

The report is deeply misogynist with its demand that women MPs of all ages who live within a 60-minute train journey from London should leave the Commons after late-night votes to travel home to arrive at one in the morning to unstaffed, unlit stations on a cold night in November. 

Firstly, the demand is on all MPs, so isn't it a bit misogynist to imply women are weak? I'd rather meet Cameron than Widdecombe down a dark alley

If that means David Cameron's and Nick Clegg's employees cease putting out partisan press releases attacking Gordon Brown I suppose I should welcome Kelly.

Poor, innocent Gordon! One word: McBride

thanks to the stupidity and cupidity of some MPs who abused the allowances and expenses system, we are well on our way to achieving this.

Like people who claimed over 18 grand a year to run an office out of their own garage for eight years? That's his 'office running costs' - so rent, heating, electricity, despite owning the property himself he still managed to rack up costs of £18,000 (smack bang in the middle of the table), oh and he claimed every last penny of the ACA

In the 19th and much of the 20th century, the Commons met only six months a year. Now we expect our MPs to do a five-day week and be in their constituencies most weekends, and constituents want instant replies to their emails 365 days a year.

2008-09 session: 128 days = Six *working* months, the shortest session since 1979-80

For five years, an MP is accountable to his or her constituents and to no one else. Whips may bully. The ambitious may toe the line. But there are plenty of MPs who can plough their own furrows and speak their own minds.

Speak...never vote

And you weren't given your seat by the party at all? And you would stand a chance without your little red rosette? Most MPs (except perhaps, this year) face absolutely no challenge from their constituents, who will never eject their favoured party

Have a read...If you have a strong stomach

Do you decide on your own salary?

Sir Stuart Bell and his ilk are convinced they should have a vote on cuts to their salary and expenses, if the reforms outlined in the Kelly report, are 'too draconian'

This is a very simple, and pertinent, point: why exactly should the MPs set their own salary, expenses and resettlement package?

They are not self-employed...

Edit: 'Decide on'? Fail...

Riot, please, just riot!

I can't take this any more, I was going to write about the Youth Parliament last week, but I've seen Hattie's latest comments and entered a world of despair

But Miss Harman yesterday suggested that the report could be shelved if it goes too far.
She said a final decision would rest with the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), whose members will be vetted by MPs before being appointed.
Miss Harman said Ipsa will have to be sure that MPs ‘can both be in their constituency as well as in Westminster’.
She added: ‘No one wants to get back to a situation where MPs were sent to Westminster and then they said to their constituents “see you again in five years”.

I wasn't aware that had changed...

MPs are furious at the prospect of having to sell their second homes and move into rented accommodation. Some warn it will make it impossible for all but the wealthiest MPs to have their families with them in London.

Really? Have these people never rented before? You can rent whole houses you know

The Prime Minister is expected to tell him that the new expenses system must not be so harsh that politics ‘becomes the preserve of the independently wealthy and that ordinary people with families must always be able to become MPs’.

Gold star for Gordon, that's the original reason for introducing MP salaries over a century ago - I'd love to know how 65k plus fiddled expenses is anywhere near what 'ordinary people' support their families with

What exactly would the preserve of the wealthy be? You can still own a house, funded by your big salary, then rent a second house for work on expenses (I really don't get their issue with renting - they do realise they won't have to pay for it, right?), claim travel expenses that few commuters would get, and an office for work - what's the problem? What is so disabling in that scenario - I'd do it, and so would a lot of ordinary people I know - do I need to break out the graph that shows where ordinary people are and where MPs are (top 9%), and the list of Labour MPs who are millionaires or professional politicians?

These people really are just living in a bubble

...pop it

Time for Scotland to go independent?

Har...har - Baroness Scotland of course

This story is confusing me somewhat - Baroness Scotland employed an illegal, she did not take the necessary measures to ensure she was within the law, and was duly fined five grand

What I want to know is if Scotland had the relevant copies, would she be fined? From the BBC

It is understood that she had seen the woman's passport, a letter from the Home Office on her right to work, her P45, her National Insurance details, references and a marriage certificate.

Labour are in full-spin I see - so, had she photocopied these would she have been fined? Clearly they were somehow false, or weren't actually valid - and an employer is obliged to properly check these documents (photos, signatures etc)

So was she fined for not following protocol, or for actually hiring an illegal? Which the law says is an offence even if it is unwitting - these checks are supposed to prevent it from happening so surely the logical conclusion is that even these documents would not help her escape a fine - you are not fined for not having the relevant documents, i.e. if you hired me, although you are required to obtain these documents, you would not be fined by the Borders Agency as I'm a citizen - so unless she was well and truly tricked she is culpable?

Let's peruse the documents shall we -

1. Passport, presumably foreign (rather than forgery) as she had a letter about right to work, so not valid
2. Home Office letter - I have a right to work in Australia until next year, it has conditions on it, presumably hers said something along the lines of while engaging in studies (she had a student visa), hardly seems a good defence, unless the Home Office are that stupid (hmmm...)
3. P45 - proves nothing!
4. National Insurance - Not a proof of entitlement to work, as outlined in her own guidelines! NI numbers are given to people who have HAD a right to work here at some point, doesn't mean she still is entitled
5. References - same as p45, prove nothing
6. Marriage certificate - This, I think was the clincher - married to a British national, so she must be eligible - well not any more, thanks to marriage visas

I see nothing that would absolve the most powerful lawyer in the country from this

And you know what? - that is the whole point, I don't think I'd care if someone employed an illegal as a nanny, I'd even let Harman off for something this trivial - I have sympathy with Ms. Tapui's situation - she is actually eligible to work in Britain and is only 'illegal' through a technical measure, most people would deserve sympathy in this situation

But not the Attorney-General, who effectively created this law where ignorance is not a defence (standard common-law practice anyway) and must be seen to follow it - for a person in her position to commit this offence is a joke

I know it's a civil matter, not a criminal one, and I wouldn't call for the head of most ministers in this case, but because she basically made this law, she must go - this is not like forgetting to pay the congestion charge (her own comparison), or speeding - this is directly linked to her job and undermines her position as chief lawmaker

It is unfortunate, I admit, but she should be stepping down for the dignity of her role - she can't be seen as a hypocrite

And that was rather longer than I intended - what I meant to get into (rather than wittering on about this like everyone else) was the government:

Once again we have an unelected, unaccountable person refusing to leave, despite it being in the public interest - traditionally of course, a person in her position would never be elected, and rightly so - but this is just compounding the case against Labour - their refusal to act just further highlights their incredible amount of power that is based on people who are completely unelected

Normally we could pressure the elected government to push her out of this esteemed position - but we already have an unaccountable prime minister, propped up by an unaccountable and unelectable 'Lord' Mandelson and a cabinet made up of cronies from the Lords, further supported by other unelectable people like the Kinnocks in the Lords and EU

If ever there was a serious case against the appointment system we have, it is this - we have tolerated the Lords for a long time because they're actually quite handy, but the danger of having such a lot of power in unelected positions (compounded by the undemocratic EU) is quite evident now - and while we may hate elected politicians, we need to take the hit and stop governments relying on their mates who they have appointed for life, Labour would've been out if they had to rely solely on the Commons by now - something which all recent governments have done

Beckett doesn't get it either

Well there's no news (it's still August...) - thank God for the Kelly report, from which we can look at what all our MPs think about their 'remuneration'

Margaret Beckett found her way to the top of the pile - saying

"Political campaigns, by-elections, public functions or conferences, prizes, sponsorships and donations incur costs, not just in hundreds but probably totalling thousands of pounds, from the MP's own pocket."

Now remind me, which of these things are Parliamentary duties?

Campaigns...nope, by-elections are exactly the same, functions and conferences - forgive me but are not all these party commitments, NOT the work of an MP?

So an MP should be paid more to campaign for re-election? So sorry, but a person who already has the strongest position as an incumbent should get their campaign factored into their salary? What about those other little candidates? They don't get anything, and major party candidates get funding from the party - that's the whole point!

Does she not realise how ridiculous she sounds? This is a typically Labour view* that the party is paramount, no consideration for independents or the fact that party business should not be a salaried part of an MP's job

As for prizes and sponsorships - what? What do MPs give out prizes for? They hand out prizes at schools and stuff, I wasn't aware they actually bought the schoolchildren prizes as well (I can't find a thing on this, if someone wishes to enlighten me)

And donations?? That would be the mandatory donations to your own party?? Do I even need to bother with that?

But this is hardly surprising from the woman who:

claimed £72,537 for her Derby South constituency cottage between 2004 and 2008, despite having no mortgage or rent to pay

— This included £711 to paint her summer house, shed and pergola; £600 on plants for hanging baskets, tubs, pots and planters; £57 to prune an apple tree; £190 to rebuild a rockery; £1,421 for “tree and hedge works”.

(From the Times)

Do not believe a word of the pity pleas that come out of their mouths - I am a fair man and do not wish a 'blight on all their houses', but they really are taking the biscuit with some of these 'poor me' claims - they are disconnected from reality and have ridiculous expectations of their own worth

*In the interests of balance, a typical Tory view is that they would be earning far more in the outside world and are therefore worthy of more, usually feeling only they are capable of occupying large 19th century leather chairs and smoking cigars (slight improv from this in the Times) - I have a suggestion for them: stay in the bloody outside world if you want to earn more, taking a pay cut doesn't entitle you to fiddle the books

*Facepalm*

Here we go again...why do they do it?

These veteran Tories really do not understand how out of touch they are, Patrick Cormack wants MPs' pay to be doubled in exchange for scrapping expenses, meanwhile Hogg (he of the moat) wants a six-figure salary, and expenses

and they say the young feel entitled

These fools really do think they are worth it, their heads are so far up their own arses they can practically see daylight - what justification is there for this? They give the impression that they have always occupied a world where they have earned mega-bucks and really don't understand that all those who earn less than 64k are not the unemployed masses

Cormack thinks it needs to be as high as this to attract the professional and business classes - right...he thinks the professional and business classes only make up the top 5% of earners? What he is proposing is within the top 1% - that is only a normal wage for the top barrister and company director - the only sort of people worthy of being an MP in his eyes no doubt

On a factual note, both my parents are 'professional class' and neither earn 64k, and they live pretty comfortably, and as for my opinion - I don't believe in paying MPs exceptional amounts just so they won't cheat is right

I've gone on about this so many times, but the sheer arrogance of some of these people is extraordinary - we need a better, less-entitled type of politician, who happens to think £64k is a huge amount for doing what is probably less work than an average worker, we aren't going to get that by giving the political classes even more

Update: Guido says it better than me, as always

Speaker Dobbin?

I guess it's time for everyone to get the knives out...Bercow is the new speaker

I have no real interest in criticising him, merely how he was elected - in short this shows the utter contempt Labour have for the electorate and our democracy

Make no mistake, this was a plot by petty Labour MPs to place the most problematic person into the chair they could - it was childish

Why do I criticise their choice in a secret ballot so much? Because it is plain for all to see that Labour MPs were committed to returning the position to the Tories, presumably so they got some of the blame, but they then deliberately chose the one Tory who the Tories would hate

I doubt that only 3 or 4 Tories voted for him, as is widely reported, but it's probably not much more - this is quite simply a childish act by the Labour lot to piss off the blue camp, who will now have to live with him if the election goes as we all expect it too

Clearly they haven't learnt a thing...

The point is not that Bercow can't do the job, or that the Tories will be that fussed about it - it is quite simply that Labour did this purely as a stunt, and showed complete contempt for their elected positions when they chose to use something as noble as the position of Speaker to annoy the other side, it doesn't even serve a practical political purpose - there is no discernible benefit to them, they just seem to think it's funny

Insular, out-of-touch and careerist barely even do them justice anymore, this does nothing to restore the authority of Parliament and frankly the Labour MPs behind this deserve to be strung up, they do not understand, or care, about the state of our democracy

This truly is Caligula appointing his horse as consul

Acceptable?

I took this from the Sketch at the Independent:

In another corridor, a Tory MP was coming out in favour of Kitty Ussher. He was carrying a Revenue pamphlet written for MPs. "Which is your 'main residence'?" it asks. The answer is: "You can choose," and "It does not have to be your 'home' for the purposes of [Additional Cost Allowance]".

There it is. Black letter advice from HM Revenue. "Your choice is relevant for capital gains tax only." I defy any British citizen of sound mind to ignore such advice in order to pay more tax.

"MPs are the only people in Britain who are now not allowed to do this," a Labour MP said, referring to the flipping.

That's interesting...here's what Kitty Ussher said:

In her resignation letter, Ms Ussher said her actions were in line with guidance from Revenue and Customs, the Commons authorities and the firm of accountants which she had consulted.

....She added: "I did not do anything wrong....Neither have I abused the allowance system of the House of Commons in any way."

Umm, haven't you? So you buy a house on expenses, finance it, then sell it at a profit to yourself and avoid tax by 'flipping' the homes (yes, I know the 'buying' is mortgage interest only, it's still savings of 20k a year on a property you will own outright)

That looks kind of bad, and I haven't even bothered to see if she furnished this home with expenses - most of them do, what happened to the furniture? Sell it or use it, that's a personal gain from the expenses account - however this is merely my speculation so, onward --

It's true, what she did for tax purposes isn't illegal - it's a tax dodge, and we are all entitled to do that and we all would if we could

The point is not really the legality, it's basic decency, and in some (OK, most) cases moral outrage is ridiculous, in others it's perfectly reasonable

I don't think people care that their MP dodges tax, were it two of their own homes, that weren't subsidised by the state, I, at least, would not have a problem - but this, like many other cases, is taking as much as you can from your expenses to feather your own nest

Like I say, it's not illegal (I think), but it's cynical, deceptive and morally dubious - and I think people generally expect a little better of their representatives, obviously some MPs felt it was wrong as they didn't do it too

Here's the facts: Kitty buys house in Burnley as second home, therefore it is funded by ACA, Kitty re-designates this house as primary residence one month before selling it, therefore avoiding CGT and keeping the money from the sale

Within the rules, yes, legal, yes - but is it honest, is it decent? If anyone tries to tell you that MPs aren't supposed to be beyond reproach then they are lying - that's a part of the job, several have been smart enough to actually realise the situation was wrong, while others have just played along - MPs are supposed to be decent, they are not like company directors who aren't accountable to the public - they can lose their jobs for having affairs for god's sake! Surely fiddling expenses is higher up than their personal sex lives?

My view: I don't think Kitty is the devil in this, in theory if you buy a second home for work, pay the interest on expenses, then sell it - you aren't making a profit and shouldn't be paying CGT anyway - but she did make a profit and I think if you can't see the problem with creating wealth off your parliamentary expenses then you're a bit thick, the estimated figure she owed was "between £9,750 and £16,800" which is 18% of her 'gain' - meaning she made a profit of £54,000 - £92,000 on that property - she has no right to be taking a profit off a home we contributed a similar amount to, and then she dodges the tax on her 'profit' that we funded...

in all honesty there are far worse cases than this, the system should work in a much better way (such as at least preventing profiteering off the ACA by taking capital back)

So yeah, people should make up their own minds if that was acceptable behaviour

*Also, her husband just so happens to be an accountant...I wonder which firm was hired

Stop, don't do it, it's a trick...you're all bloody sheep!!

Cameron has jumped on this quick, in what has been a reasonably well-received move, he has been decisive and apologetic

Brown has been trumped and looks like a lemon as he reacted with all the speed of a teenager in the morning, (but without the looks), this is, in my humble opinion, a big victory for Cameron

It's all about image, of course, and while Tory MPs are being dragged through the mud, 'Dave' has kept his nose mostly clean and looked far more authoritative than the old Golem

Maybe this will wash with the public, all the majority of Tory voters need is to not be too disgusted to vote Tory and they will waltz to power

And here in lies the problem - this is a con - us political types know exactly what is going on, as Nick Robinson rightly points out:

None of this, of course, will be enough to silence those who complain that politicians only said and agreed to change after being caught with their hands in the till.

Precisely, the Tories shouldn't be winning anything based on this - all the big parties should be losing

This is why I have no worries over Labour - this is just another nail in the coffin, a Labour member that's been caught out will be ousted, but unfortunately the Tories are mostly going to be let off the hook - unless they really get hung out and lose the whip it's unlikely typical Tory heartlands will rebel against their MPs in their desire to restore a Tory government and support Dave

So these people we think of as crooks will return, having paid back their loot, people who had pianos tuned, swimming pools cleaned and chandeliers...re-shinied...with public money, will come back to represent constituents once more

I don't support the 'plague on all your houses' line, but each MP must be scrutinised at an election - it isn't enough to allow that MP back because you want a Tory government - they will, on the whole, not be punished by their party, and they will certainly not face prosecution

The only trial they get is that one every four or five years, and people really don't take it seriously enough - it is one of the fundamental flaws within our democracy - where you, in reality, vote for a party and a leader, but elect an MP who you probably don't know the name of

I know I'm a shameless advocate of independents, but if you really need any proof take a look at Dan1979's post on Norman Tebbit telling people to vote for a minor party

Cameron is basically bullying him - admittedly it's hardly surprising within a party, they are what they are - but as you can see, having two major parties with such a stranglehold on our government is incredibly stifling to independent voices - and logically it should raise the question of why we have over 600 'representatives' when they have virtually no voice

One final thing, this clip of Lord Foulkes (now widely known as 'that fat wanker') attacking an admittedly over-paid, BBC newsreader on salaries

I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty, it's all over the blogs - but I will say that he is fundamentally wrong, he claims the BBC and the media undermine democracy, not the 'hard-working' MPs - if he knew anything about politics he'd know about checks and balances, the media, as much as we love to hate them, are the only check we have left on those MPs

If it weren't for the likes of the BBC and the Telegraph who would've told us the truth? They have an agenda, sure - but it shows up those that are thieving bastards for the good of us all

Moran

Oh dear oh dear, Margaret Moran just doesn't get it does she?

The Luton MP moved her 'second home' to Southampton because her partner works there

Not only is having your second home in the wrong constituency (note: by a good eighty miles) grossly offensive, but the fact that she feels that this home she shares with her husband should be a burden on the taxpayer

I would like to ask why she doesn't just keep her second home in Luton, which she does need to work in the Luton office, and finance the third home herself, which is personal, not a work expense in anyone's mind, love - I bet all those people who have to work away from home would love a house funded for their family to be with them

Answer: As Iain Dale points out, she only moved the house days before she needed some dry rot fixed in her Southampton home

The prosecution rests, your honour

Dale also points out that both she and her husband are on the electoral roll in Luton, no doubt for voting reasons - what a crock

Shut up

Seriously, woman - put a sock in it

It is not because you are a woman, it is because you're a charlatan who can't even admit you've done wrong

You want some equality? How about we kick you in the nuts

*No doubt that jab at rich Tories with property (despite the wealthiest MP being a Labour minister) has come from on high, just like at the Crewe and Nantwich by-election

I really am sick of this - stop f***ing voting for these people

Sanctimonious tripe

I was feeling lazy today, Jacqui Smith's defence riled me somewhat, but it's old news - and then I found this little piece of rot from Alice Miles in the Times

She is defending MPs - of course she derides having to pay for the occasional miscreant and bemoans the system - but most are good, she claims, and she bleats on about how the system is wrong and how we need to put this behind us, all fine

But this masks her defence of MPs and ministers -

Political life is cruel to families. Imagine the life of a minister working 18-hour days in London (and often abroad), with a constituency in a far-flung corner of the country and a young family caught in the middle. Imagine the extra childcare costs they must pay when foreign summits demand a spouse at their side: the £8-£10 hourly rate for a nanny, plus up to £5 an hour in tax and insurance - and all for the privilege of not seeing your child all weekend.

Notice how she has referred to ministers, not MPs - very few MPs go to international conventions with their better halves, the senior ministers do, those who are paid more than double your typical MP and allowed first class travel

True it does split up families, and I have never begrudged those living in the far-flung corners of Britain their home comforts, but welcome to real life - many workers have to do ridiculous commutes, and spend weeks away from their families - they do not get such rewards, nor is their worklife so good, or influential

Remember that these are the 650 most powerful people in the country (in theory) - and that their work consists mostly of speaking and listening, there are no managers, overheads or targets chasing them around, just a 'review' after five years - the hours are flexible, and the bar cheap - this is not a bad price to pay for being away from home 3 or 4 days a week, especially considering the almost 20-week period where you can work from your constituency

This is complete fudge from Ms Miles - talking about childcare for when the parents are away on state business - this really only refers to a handful of members, and I repeat - those who are on far more than an MP's salary. Hell, have a childcare allowance - I don't mind

She then defends the renting out of London property for those in grace-and-favour homes, once again she distorts the facts - there is nothing wrong with renting out a property, what is wrong is claiming expenses on the other

As a normal citizen you should be expected to run one home, we all need a home, right? A second one is required to work in two places, so you have an allowance for it - if you are given this second home then you should not be claiming for a third - I don't care if Darling lets out his London flat, but he has no right to claim expenses for his Edinburgh home while he has a freebie provided

Miles shows her true colours when she continues:

It is all very well for David Cameron to promise to remove the second-home allowance from any of his ministers with grace-and-favour properties...and many of his senior colleagues can afford to keep two homes. Labour ministers, on the whole, are not as wealthy.

That old 'Tory elite' chestnut - unfortunately these days Labour is full of wealthy members, many of whom are second generation politicians, Harriet Harman for one, and as I pointed out yesterday - Geoff Robinson. The old argument that Labour MPs are all working class heroes no longer washes, (particularly when you compare Blair and Brown with both Thatcher and Major) there probably are proportionately more of the 'elites' in the Tory ranks, but unfortunately it is Cameron's image that has allowed Labour to claim they are the sole offenders - you will find a pretty similar picture in both these days (sickening isn't it?)

Then we get an impassioned plea for Sarah Brown - who apparently can't afford the £9,000 top she wore to the G20, and had to rent it

'She doesn't have a job so her husband can lead the world' - call me stupid but doesn't her hubby earn over £180k a year? Considering that's in the top 1% of earners and many housewives can live comfortably on much less, I don't think there's a huge issue here - maybe she can't burn nine grand on one top, but believe me she can spend a lot more than 99% of the wives in this country

I think the only point that comes across from Alice's sympathy is that Gordon is tight-fisted, or that she's a feminist and Sarah must not be allowed to live off her husband

This article in a well respected newspaper enrages me - it smacks of arrogance, of the sort that I've seen in several broadsheets recently - I think these writers are getting a little out of touch with reality

She brands the expenses as minor, and says that Jacqui Smith has far too an important job to do - unfortunately I disagree, ignoring the fact that Smith has never once shown any sort of use as Home Secretary, or evidence of being qualified for the role, she has deliberately abused the system - not a few bathplugs (which I'm willing to bet was on a plumber's receipt), but household furniture and decor, and a cable TV package - the porn was a mistake and is not the main issue here. What people like Miles don't seem to get is that it is not the porn that enrages us, it is that she has claimed her family house as an expense - it is not appropriate professional conduct, and the people will not stand for it - I have said it time and again, the fact was she was making personal benefit off expenses - you cannot deny that

Smith and Miles' defences are both a joke hidden behind a pathetic facade of 'the system'

Bad MP!

So I decided to undertake the task of organising the MPs expenses myself - not too hard, just got the main spreadsheet off the net and split it into my own and sorted them - unfortunately while we are without specific receipts there's not a lot to tell except where an MP is outside the median

The additional costs allowance: ('Cost of staying away from main home')

Of note are the nine MPs who do not claim anything, nor get the London allowance:

Adam Afriyie (C-Windsor)
Celia Barlow (L-Hove)
Richard Benyon (C-Newbury)
Philip Dunne (C-Ludlow)
David Howarth (LD-Cambridge)
Anne Milton (C-Guildford)
Geoffrey Robinson (L-Coventry NW)
Martin Salter (L-Reading West)
Rob Wilson (C-Reading East)

Little surprise - all from along the heavy commuter lines - Cambridge, Reading and Hove are well-served and within an hour of London - what is also striking is that several of them are in their first term (mostly the Tories, who made gains in the 2005 election)

The exceptions are Geoff Robinson, who is a veteran Labour MP and very wealthy - it would seem he prefers to use his own properties than claim on the allowance, which is a damn sight better than a lot of MPs, I'd wager - and Philip Dunne, who comes from Shropshire and doesn't claim a lot really - very little travel, but he does have a massive office expense - make of that what you will, he is from the upper classes so maybe pays his own way

Others worthy of note are James Brokenshire (C-Hornchurch) and Kelvin Hopkins (L-Luton North) who both claim a noticeably low amount - again these two are within easy reach of the capital - Anne Widdecombe is also low, but I have ignored her as she's virtually retired (and yet retains her seat when she really shouldn't)

So I think what is of interest here is the people in similar positions who claim large amounts, while their comparable peers claim for travel (for example Kelvin Hopkins claims under £4,000 for his train tickets from Luton)

Let's pick some notable cads:

Oliver Heald (C-NE herts) - he lives in Royston, a commuter town on the Cambridge line - the same train David Howarth gets on earlier (and claims four and a half thousand for), and therefore is only a 45 minute train ride from London, and yet he claims £104 under the maximum (or nearly six times what his neighbour does) - worth exploring that one

Also in that area we can see South Cambridgeshire and SE Cambidgeshire, represented by two Tories - Andrew Lansley and James Paice respectively - Lansley has an office in Cambridge and Paice appears to do house calls rather than surgeries, so I can't find his office address - needless to say they are both very close to the city itself and in much the same situation as David Howarth, and yet Paice claims the full amount, and Lansley is just under £22k

Four MPs, potentially within 20 miles of each other, in a well-connected area and yet only one manages to fit commuting into his work, I have previously said I don't mind the claim if it is fair and hardly expect a commute from the Hebrides to London - but I have deliberately picked on Cambridge because it is the most used commuter line in the country - granted it isn't pleasant in peak hour (as you may have gathered from my knowledge, Cambridge is my homeland) but if Howarth can manage it for a few thousand a year so can they

You know what really grates me? Howarth, the commuter, claims £4348 on rail, Lansley claims £1822 on rail and £3125 on mileage (ie. car), Paice claims £4890 on mileage and £545 on rail and Heald claims £3246 on mileage and £3870 on rail! Somehow they all claim more than the bloke who doesn't even stay in London!

Now I'm not surprised those three have car expenses - rural constituencies will require some driving around, and Howarth would be an idiot to drive in Cambridge - but maybe they will have cheaper offices? Especially as Paice goes on call - nope, all four are within the £120k band, Lansley the most and Paice the least (and I'm willing to bet the difference is Cambridge rent)

I'm not too interested in their office expenses, I barely regard it as an 'expense' - but I was just checking for value's sake - so of these four geographically-close MPs, one seems to give immensely better value (about £4.5k vs £30k) - are rural areas really six times more expensive?

Now let's head over to one of those other areas - west of London, you will note that two Reading MPs, and the ones for Windsor and Newbury do not claim to stay in London, while the member for Slough (L-Mactaggart) claims less than £3,000 in travel, and only £3,400 on the ACA (and somehow got her employee's travel at less than £7 a go)

You would think the member for Wokingham, just south-east of Reading, John Redwood, would also be pretty cheap - oh no, he claims over £22k despite representing an area with a direct London train route - his travel is pretty good - under £4000 for mileage, clearly he drives and parks up at his London address - but he still claims what is virtually the full amount on that second home, and that is where most of the problems arise (you can't really get much benefit out of a travel allowance, can you) - you have to ask: is it worth it, and is he providing good value by claiming such an amount?

Enough of that, let's look at travel:

Travel is pretty dull really - unless somebody notes how many use those ridiculous 1st class tickets, what I'm looking for is oddities rather than how much people claim on train fares

In fact they look pretty reasonable - the highest spenders are those from Northern Scotland and the islands up there, they make up the very few MPs that are claiming over £30k - so not bad

There are however MP expenses for employee and family travel - once again the remote members make up the most expensive of employee travel, although I am slightly dubious of Geraldine Smith (Morecambe) claiming 10 employee trips at a cost of over 170 quid a go, or how about Alan Campbell's (Tynemouth) staff at over £200 each, is it that much for a return from Newcastle? Indeed quite a few of these employee trips from the remote regions are well over £100 a pop, I guess the employees take taxis and claim everything they can, but the airfares or train fares seem a bit 'steep' to me

I'm more interested in the spouse and family claims - of which you can use 30 each I believe, and which a few, mostly Scottish, MPs seem to be making good use of - is there really a good reason why Charles Kennedy and Alastair Darling need so much family support? Maybe because they stay down south longer? Either way they both stand out having used 60 and 55 expensive trips respectively

Charles Kennedy also seems to fork out nearly twice as much for his wife than for his employees per trip - rather odd as I would expect them to not be a million miles apart, at least Caroline Spelman (she of the dodgy nanny) is getting good value - 100 trips out of her £6k

There also seems to be a weird correlation between those that don't use the family allowance at all and those that spend lots on their employees - hmm...very interesting that

A better analysis may also reveal people like Malcolm Rifkind - A London MP who needs £5000 in travel apparently, half of which is airfares? (he's going up to his Scottish home, but there's no reason he should be claiming that)

One also wonders where Gerry Adams has been flying...considering he has never taken his seat in Westminster

I must admit Ann Keen has caught my eye - not a single travel expense for the west London representative, and yet she comes in at no.27 on the total expenses list, and as Wikipedia points out - if you discount travel, which disproportionately hits MPs from further away, she is no.1 - with a whopping office expense, and yes this is the woman who is married to another MP, with whom she combines the second home allowance (because that makes sense...) and has some rather dodgy allegations against her and her spouse

It's also interesting that despite there being dozens of london MPs (74), only nine don't bother with travel expenses, and even one out in Windsor doesn't - that's it, why can only these ten people get by without claiming for their tube tickets - even Mark Field, who represents Westminster, claims nearly a grand in train tickets, as do neighbours Karen Buck and Rifkind - these guys could bloody walk to work

What about Staffing? Well there's not a huge amount to go on - most are within a fairly wide band, for some reason Ann Keen and Ed Davey need obscenely expensive offices, the only two over the £140k mark

At the bottom end only our friend Hollobone comes in low, at £17k, the only other two below £50k are the speaker, not surprising, and Dennis Skinner

The average cost of running an office with staff is £116,000 - not bad I think

there are only 260 below this, or 40%

Personally, while some of them are trying to say most MPs are honest, while admitting some are dodgy, I feel that more than half are playing the system - some far more clearly that others - you can't even tell from the data I have that McNulty and Smith are up to anything - in fact McNulty looks like one of the best (within the bottom 200), and look what he was up to

Here are some averages:

Average cost of an office: £17,813 - 354 above this (54%)
Average staffing costs: £85,872 - 385 above this (59%)

Average ACA: £19,469 - 409 above this (69%)

MPs who claim within £100 of the full ACA: 198 (claiming full amount is 143, many claim within pounds of that)

over £22,000: 292 (£22-23,083: 292)
over £21,000: 346 (£21-21,999: 54)
over £20,000: 388 (£20-20,999: 42)
over £15,000: 494 (£15-19,999: 106)
over £10,000: 553 (£10-14,999: 59)
under £10,000 (and eligible): 42

So, well over half are within a few grand of the total, and taking away the 50 who aren't eligible, it's 58% who claim more than £21k, and 24% claim the full amount, and yet only 7% use slightly less than half (9% claim less than half) - it is this 'allowance' that definitely needs reforming - why is there any reason for these massive differences? They are all London living arrangements after all

I think we'll be lucky if 40% of MPs are being honest

The Cheapest MP

My apologies to Philip Hollobone (Tory for Kettering) - turns out he was the frugal MP mentioned on the BBC several months ago

Here he is in the telegraph - living in a cramped office and using second class post, and I totally agree with him for only using standard class travel (why shouldn't you??)

I still wonder how he rates on a service level - it's very good that he keeps his expenses down but they are there for a reason, and if you can improve the service to constituents with a bit more cash then I think you should - the real issue is that you do not personally benefit from expenses, which he clearly doesn't - the issue of service is brought up in this article in the Indie

One issue I must take up though, is why does he claim the full amount for the second home? He says it's done begrudgingly - but other MPs can do it for less - I have stayed in nice, cheap London hotels many times, costing about £55-70 per night - every weeknight in the year would not cost more than £15k at this rate, and that's assuming he is there four nights a week every week, when parliament barely runs for half the year - I have no idea how often he is down there so I used the full 52 weeks

Hotels may not be very practical, but I'm fairly sure you could rent a private property for less than full - I've just been on google and found flats in SE London (where he stays) for less than £1500 a month, by my reckoning that's £18,000 at a generous estimate - if he was truly interested in cutting costs surely he could knock off a bit? Instead he claims £84 less than full, coming in at the 195th most expensive claim on second homes - more than 400 (or over 60%) manage it for less, and they aren't all London MPs - Chris Huhne lives in Hampshire and manages it for less than £4,000, Eric Pickles, of whom some question the validity of his claim considering he only travels from Essex, is under £14,000 - why is Phil up in the upper echelons? (To be fair there seem to only be about 200 MPs who claim substantially less than the full amount, but still - he's right up there)

I don't want to attack the bloke, because he seems reasonable, and certainly isn't worthy of public scorn - I'm just questioning everything I see and could maybe help him cheapen up that expense which he says he's worried over

I am now going to play with a spreadsheet on a fact finding mission, toodles

Some Data

Found these rather handy tools for analysing MPs expenses: you can see a map of travel expenses here

Note: These are just travel expenses and quite boring if you're a sensationalist - no antique fireplaces or bathplugs

Here is a very good list of MPs total expenses, albeit without the useful receipts that I want, in online spreadsheet form

Specific mention must go to Philip Hollobone who appears to be very careful, and somewhat stingy - he only used a few hundred on stationery and postage, which appears somewhat lazy rather than cost-effective, and still claims the virtually full amount of £23000 second home allowance (which is the big part of the dodgy area anyway) - he just has no staff, I wonder what his service is like - I shall be looking him up

This blog, by the author of the map, Tony Hirst, is awesome

What a Hoon!

Another one bites the dust

Geoff Hoon has been caught letting out his main home, living in a 'grace and favour' home, and getting expenses on the old constituency home

Now we all know the tabloids are going to drag these up one by one to drag to fill their pages for a good year, (see my earlier request for a comprehensive list of 'good' and 'bad' MPs) - but this is a relevant story, if only to further highlight the inherent corruption within the system

Hoon claims he is within the rules, and no doubt he is within the loosely-worded rules that govern MPs - but I repeat what pretty much every sane person is shouting out: the rules are wrong!

I don't mind Hoon being in a free house - security matters etc - fine by me... but why should he be allowed to earn money on one and then claim money for another while living in a freebie?

Just because you can 'within the rules', does not mean you should, especially in a job where you a representative of the public - it's called ethics, and the fact is the people believe you have done wrong and in no way do we seriously believe you didn't realise what you did was wrong

Writing in the Mail on Sunday Conservative leader David Cameron said the problems in the expenses system were shared by all parties.

"We are all implicated and we must all find a solution," he said.

MPs needed expenses, but there had to be more transparency, he said. He added that if elected the party would end the policy allowing ministers with free homes to claim for a second, which he said had "no justification".

Too late, Cameron - you think we don't know this has been going behind the scenes for years? Likewise Brown's 'suggestions' and his inquiry (that won't be published til after Labour are given the boot) are all too little too late - being caught with your hands in the cookie jar and then decrying the behaviour is not good enough

These people have abused the system and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it any more - they don't get to change the rules for themselves any more and then cry foul - GET THEM OUT!

Weekend update out

Don't try to kid me

I was over at Steve Richards getting irate with his patronising and wrote a lengthy comment on expenses once again (sorry, it's news right now) - I didn't want to lose it so here it is:

While I agree that MPs need working expenses and the press are taking this too far, there is a fundamental issue beneath this and that is that MPs are milking the system - it's well known they were told to back in the 80s and 90s rather than announce massive pay rises

British politics is not *that* corrupt, I believe we are 16th out of 180 countries in some ranking system and better than the US, and obviously places like Italy - but that doesn't make it right

There are some good, conscientious MPs, mostly back-benchers, who want to behave with integrity - rather than the career politicians that probably come straight through the party machines - but many are not - there is no defence for Smith - her claiming her actual home as an expense is clearly as bent as a shepherd's crook - the porn is a nice, funny angle but the serious issue is that she has claimed furniture, appliances and fittings for the house we all know is the real home, while being paid umpteen times more than the average person who has to toil for that - in short she has benefited from expenses, and that's just not on - maybe she is a scape goat, but she is one of the three most powerful people in the government and her authoritarian policies are not liked - what do you expect? Surely we can expect some decency from the person with the job of protecting our borders and streets?

The rise of other parties (extremist or not) and independent MPs will be no bad thing - we cannot go on with the two party dictatorship - that is the problem with our MPs, the people do not choose them - so how do we get them to do what WE want?

So Steve, if you want to improve politics encourage people to start looking at who they vote for, not just marking X by the parties they've always voted for - if we actually elected our politicians and didn't make our only option to trust either Labour or the Tories to sort it out then we wouldn't be in this mess

Laugh or Cry?

This time I am leaning towards 'laugh'....a lot

Oh Jacqui, you are the gift that keeps on giving

Her husband (who is employed as her 40,000 pound a year aide) has been caught claiming for porn from subscription TV (I believe it was Virgin media) on her already much-questioned expenses

Now I personally see this as an oversight - even though I personally would not be stupid enough to 'accidentally' claim for my Internet-Phone-TV service bundle on expenses, I will give them the benefit of the doubt here - the porn itself was a tenner, and frankly its so brilliant I would pay for her husband's use myself

Normally I would be up in arms about a possible expense fiddle - but this is so much better than a fiddle, and I think a lot of people agree with me that this a big kick in the teeth for our authoritarian Home Sec

This is the woman who decided there were too many lap-dancing clubs and wanted to curb their growth because she, personally, felt there were too many out there, more recently she has been attacking 'sexualisation' in music and videos

It really could have only been better had her hubby been frequenting such clubs on the public purse, or maybe had a cannabis factory in the cellar, perhaps claiming the electricity bill

Previously her claims were dubious, a bit dodgy - now they are plain farcical, if not outrageous

She not only gets to claim utilities, council tax and furniture on the property where her husband (sorry, Office manager) and children live permanently, but has also claimed for a sofa bed, oven and even a bath plug

They really do think we're stupid to think we would see this as anything but feathering their own nests...or they foolishly thought they'd never get caught (probably the latter) - it's blatantly obvious that these are not business costs, but that she is financing her own home, conveniently we will never get to see how much she pays her sister in rent (but it should be over the maximum of 24,000 per year for cost-effectiveness)

What really bites at most people is that they have to run their home and furnish it from their own salary, and Smith is doing it on expenses when they get a combined salary of 180,000 a year (minimum) - where is all that going? Why can she not afford the interest on her mortgage on a pretty regular family home in the West Midlands, or her bills accumulated by her average size family?

But I have to agree with Michael Brown (yes, he's a Tory) on this - leave her in office, because she no longer has credibility as the stern, iron-fisted 'Jackboots' that people like me have come to loathe - she is now a joke and far more damaging if left to do her job and spout on about national security while we all roll around laughing, so I no longer want her gone (although I wasn't really interested in a sacking, more an election)

He also points out, she may as well be doing it, as she is the incumbent of one of the smallest Labour majorities and it is likely both her and her husband will be unemployed within a year - Happy day

In the interests of balance let us all mock Conservative boss-man Eric Pickles - I had assumed the main parties had picked their candidates for Question Time carefully and assumed Pickles would be reasonably upstanding, they clearly didn't think about his logistics that reasonably - while they aren't particularly dodgy, claiming you can't travel 37 miles to be at work for 9.30am is a joke to most people out there