It's hard to overstate how shocked and annoyed Labour members I have spoken to have been over the revelations about MPs expenses in the Telegraph and other newspapers. Those of us on the ground floor, knocking on doors and doing all the donkey work should not be made to feel ashamed of being engaged and involved in politics. Our neighbours pay for it through their taxes - we do that and give up our spare time and spare cash.
MPs may bleat that "all parties are at it" or that they are underpaid compared to GPs or they are victims of the press, but none of this washes. To your average voter, MPs aren't underpaid at all. To your average party member who gives so much for free, the MPs sense of entitlement is shocking.
At stake is the reputation of the Labour party - this must come above the needs of individual MPs. In the 80's, Labour was constantly attacked over letting extremists hijack the party. It wasn't till Neil Kinnock publicly took on Derek Hatton and other Militant extremists at the party conference that the tide started to turn and the public began to see that Labour was serious about putting its house in order. By contrast, the Conservatives did not deal with Neil Hamilton in the 1997 election. They foolishly allowed him to represent them, so the story became "Conservatives back MP who receives money in brown bags". They should have protected their party and forced him to step down. Labour mustn’t make the same mistake. The MPs with the worst abuses cannot be allowed to contest the next election representing Labour.
I accept that part of the problem is the system that invites MP’s to claim an allowance for the extra expense of having to run a second home. I note, that it is an allowance, not an expenses claim. Nevertheless, the emphasis should be on the words “extra expense”. Frankly, some of the expose in the press is trivial and could be forgiven as long as the system is now changed. However some is not, and amounts to little better than fraud, especially over the, “switching “, of second home designation to maximise the amounts claimable.
I also accept that, in the Labour Party at least, it is just a few MP's that have grossly abused the system.
South Thanet MP, Steve Ladyman has issued the following:
"A personal message about expenses - as I know that strong feelings were expressed at last night's Ramsgate branch meeting. Members of the Party are right to be angry about some of the things that have been revealed but I hope you won't tar us all with the same brush.
I have never claimed for any furniture or household items or any repairs or alterations.
I have not claimed to have my moat cleared nor to have my tennis court repaired.
I certainly haven't been involved in using the allowance for 'flipping'. This year and last year my expenses have been on my website with an explanation of how they arose. Out of 650 MPs, 440 claimed more money than me in the expense table despite me having a working office in the constituency (whereas many of the others that claim less in the expense table have only a Parliamentary office and therefore pay no office rent,electricity or phone costs). My receipts are not on the website because, until they are released by the House, I don't have them in electronic form. I can assure you, however, they are beyond reproach and only include legitimate claims.The current debacle must be sorted out and if any MP (of any Party) has abused the system they should answer to their electorate and in the case of the Labour Party must answer to their GC which has every right to deselect them if it is justified.
Steve"
Dr Stephen Ladyman
MP for South Thanet
House of Commons
Thor mercury explosion and discharge
1 hour ago
14 comments:
There is more at stake than the reputation of the Labour Party Mr Green. This whole expenses scandle, or at least what has become public so far, has made yet more potential voters turn their backs on the ballot box, if comments heard are to be believed.
The MPs saying sorry seem to mean it, not out of a sense of shame, but because they are sorry to have been caught. If you lose your council seat to the BNP, the NF, UKIP or some other fringe party, you will know who to blame.
Here are some basic facts about Dr Ladyman's expenses record
All figures are taken from the year 07-08
In this year Dr Ladyman claimed 22,793 pounds in terms of a 2nd home allowance. If this wasnt spent on furniture we can only assume it went either on mortage or rental payments. I call upon Dr Ladyman to declare which of these it was and if the former to pledge to pay any capital gain made on his property in london when he sells it to good causes in the Thanet area.
In the same year he also claimed some 70,000 pounds in staffing costs a large proportion of which presumably went to his good lady wife. Can he confirm how much he is paying to his family and will he undertake to repay these monies over and above the average wage of his constituents.
If he wont make these pledges then I am afraid he is guilty as charged along with the rest of the MPs with their noses so embedded in the trough they cannot see the difference between acting according to a set of rules they themselves constructed and acting in a manner acceptable to the fair minded british public.
Interestingly from Dr ladymans own website.
I review the number of nights I spend in London regularly in order to comply with the rules and currently, although I am no longer a Minister, I still spend about 55% of nights in London so have to claim against my constituency property. I am in the process of reorganising some of my arrangements and this is likely to change the balance of nights spent in London and the constituency and when that happens I will switch the designation of my main home.
Sounds awfully like flipping to me which Cllr Green is complaining about as being fraudulent. Can I assume Cllr Green will be disowning his own local MP forthwith ?
'Flipping' appears to occur when MPs are selling a house so that they don't pay capital gains tax on their main residence.
Flipping is when they re-assign which house is their first home and which is their second home for financial gain.
This seems to be exactly the behaviour Steve "two troughs" Ladyman is engaged in.
Dave
You are very brave taking on the subject , but I do agree with you they are not all the same. We have heard all about the baddies so I do hope in time we will hear who are the goodies.
I don't think the political parties are at fault, I just think it is individuals abusing a generous system. Obviously the system has to end and the worst offenders really need to be dealt with. Unfortunatly, there are sections of the media that are hell bent on keeping up a poisonous political atmosphere by tainting every single politician which is damaging democracy and deliberatly promoting some sort of authoritarian alternative.
I have met voters who are going to vote for UKIP because of all this scandal but they seem oblivious to or unwilling to consider the fact that at least two UKIP MEPs have been caught fiddling their expenses as well.
It is a public disgrace, and for those who have always believed, and wanted to believe, that Labour MPs did not fall foul of this sort of overt greed, it is a great let-down.
I am certainly in that category, but it will not shake my fundamental view that Labour principles and policies best serve the interests of the British people.
I applaud you, Councillor Green, for posting a blanced item, which acknowledges the own goal scored by a number of greedy, exploitative Labour MPs. Your blog is quite distinct from Tory Councillor Moores, where party political advantage and point scoring is the order of the day. Plenty there attacking Labour, but nothing commenting on the scandal equally rocking his Tory Party. The local spin "doctor" par excellence.
Turning to our local MPs, Ladyman is covered here, but what of his Tory neighbour Gale? He employs his wife as his "Parliamentary Director". He refuses to say how much he pays her, but his staff expenses are some £80,000 per year. He therefore pays her something up to that figure. He has been in office for 25 years. At current values, therefore, he has paid her up to £2,000,000.
He refuses to say whether there was ever a competition for her job, but in all likelihood there was none. She walked into it, which is hardly the fair and open competition we would all regard as a "basic".
The consensus, even at Westminster, is that MPs should not employ family members.
Gale accused those who last year were pursuing Tory cheat Derek Conway MP - his personal friend - of conducting a "witchhunt". He was prepared to defend his friend even when the level of fraud was clearly proven.
I wonder why he is not among the Daily Telegraph "wanted"?
The last comment makes me laugh. You clearly dont know much about Roger Gales office do you? Those who know nothing preach like they know it all.
James,
I notice you have rebutted nothing in the comment only attacked the author, so like the local tory party you represent from outwith.
At least have the balls to nail your colours to the mast, if the guy is wrong give definitive statements as to how.
Although given your flip/flopping in terms of party allegiences I suspect you have none.
James, as the author of the post that has apparently made you laugh, perhaps you would explain a) what is inaccurate in it, and b) what you know about Gale's office that materially changes anything I have said.
Gale refuses to answer any questions about the role of his wife, any competition for her post, and her remuneration (even as a percentage of his overall allowance). You and your former/current/future Tory allies always say "ask the question". He has been asked but refuses to answer.
And I know it's election time, but please try to curb your innate Tory bias towards rudeness. There was nothing rude in my post.
maskell is so typical of the local tories. drops a nasty, ill-tempered little comment then runs away without answering questions put to him. and he even claims not to be a tory now.
Roger Gale's office is only open in the mornings whereas Steve Ladyman's is open all day and regularly has constituents waiting to see someone who can help with their problems. He employs at least three staff members and the phones never stop ringing with people seeking help one way or another.
Does anyone know how many Roger Gale employs? I went with someone who sought his help and he had to wait for a few weeks before he could be seen. I doubt anyone waits that long to see Dr. Ladyman because he has a caseworker to deal with the type of difficulty my friend was in.
Post a Comment