An interesting read

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/labour-mps-expenses/#at

Another day......

This blog could almost write itself at the moment.

Tony Mcnulty's been ordered to pay back £14,000 out of £72,000 expenses for his 'second home' - where his parents have been living.

Not even going to bother commenting on that one.

Open door policy on immigration

It seems that since 2000, Labour has had an open door policy on immigration, unbenowns to the public that voted for them, so as to create a multicultural society, remove any idea of British identity, and make the Conservatives look like racist bigots should they dare to raise any form of protest against it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

Utterly beggars belief. Sooner we dum this lunatic load of labour the better.

Jacqui Smith - another shining example

Jacqui Smith yesterday 'apologised' (no doubt through gritted teeth with both fingers firmly crossed - for claiming her sisters home in London as her primary residence, and her family home as her second home - in Redditch.

Mrs Smith will not have to pay back the £64,000 claimed!

“I don’t believe that making a different decision would have resulted in better value for money,” Smith said in a written response to the report. “I am disappointed that this process has not led to a fairer set of conclusions.”

Sounds like a sincere apology to me!

Let the squirming begin

Mps received a letter yesterday detailing the overpayments of expenses claimed, and asking to either repay, or say why they should not have to.

For a change, the sounds of politicians rushing to microphones is deafening - by its absence.

Yo can almost hear the squirming of bottoms on seats, as some, reportedly, face repayments of anything up to £200,000.

Some are threatening legal action (so it is rumoured), saying that the expenses were all claimed within the rules.

Some are saying that the rules were so complicated, how were they supposed to understand them. Just a note to your good selves - you created them (duh!), and even if you couldn't understand them, what right did you have to take blatant and flagrant advantage of them.

Some are saying that the letter's not in fact a demand for repayment, its only for information, and that there could be no basis for enforcement.

They just don't get it do they. This has nothing to do with whether these 'expenses' were within the rules or not - its all about sticking fat snouts in the trough, and taking the electorate of this country for a ride. The whole system was corrupt (whether it stilll is or not remains to be seen), and any politician taking advantage to line their own pockets should be summarily booted out, with no end of term compensation packages or anything, and be forced to repay ALL expenses.

That would clean up politics faster than you could say Jack Flash.

Footnote - praise for Gordy and Cameron (for a change) - at least they will be returning any inappropriate expenses, Gordy £12,000 odd and Cameron has said to Conservative Mps 'Pay up, or you won't be standing at the next election'

Harriet Harman crash

Harriet Harman faces a police investigation for allegedly driving off after hitting a parked car as she chatted on her mobile.

The deputy Labour leader is said to have wound down her window, telling a witness, "I'm Harriet Harman - you know where you can get hold of me," before leaving the scene.

According to one person who claims to have seen the prang, she did not give her insurance details or registration to anyone.

No one was injured.

She was reported to ave been still on the phone after the accident.

Now, its a criminal offence to leave an accident scene with leaving personal and insurance details. Yet again, its one rule for them, and another for the rest of us. This is waht it sounds like to me.

"I'm Harriet Harman - you know where you can get hold ofme, I don't need to wait because I'm more important than you."

The police are said to be investigating this. Lets see what happens. One rule for you, another for you........

Policewomen childcare

Yet another groan I don't believe it moment.

" policewomen have been told they can't reciprocally look after each others children while they work, because the childcare they receive from the other parent consitutes 'reward', unless they register as child minders

The rules also state that you have to be a registered child minder if you look after somone elses child for more than 2 hours, or if its after 2.00 in the morning. No more sleep overs then.

For crying out loud. On the one hand they want to try to get mothers working again, on the other hand they they put as many barriers as possible in the way of doing so.

Oh, I wonder what the fee for registration is?

Some Labour conference ideas

So, every old age pensioner in the country is to get free home care.

How? Who's going to pay for it? It won't really be free will it?

Crackpot idea from a dieing government.

Snubby Brown

Oh dear. Gordy's been clamouring to get a a chat with Barack, about stuff, and got 15 minutes in the kitchen, on a 'walk and talk'. But Downing Street officials failed in their frantic attempts to get 'face time' with the US President.

Perhaps the stink of Lockerbie and the 'compassionate' release of the convicted Libyan terrorist has something to do with it.

Or perhaps its because Obama doesn't want to be associated with the weakest excuse for a UK cling-on PM in the last 100 years thats about to oversee the downfall of the current labour government. And boring too.

The picture says it all

Middle class familioes to pay more for students

In a move of incredible blind stupidity, and groping to claw back mobey from the banking fiasco, the CBI's higher education task force has come up with a plan to make the middle class pay more, yet again,

Essentially :

• The £3,100-a-year cap on fees should be lifted, suggesting that a rise to £5,000-a-year would deliver £1.25 billion more for universities;
• Student loans, which are subsidised by the Government at present, should be charged at commercial interest rates – significantly increasing the amount graduates will repay;
• The threshold for grants should be lowered. At the moment, students from families earning less than £60,000 are eligible for a partial grant, but the CBI says that this should be lowered to £38,000. Only students from families earning less than £17,910 should receive a full grant – instead of the present £25,000.

The latter would hit middle class families the hardest.

The utterly ridiculous goal of getting 50% of school leavers in universities (most of which are mickey mouse nedia studies courses), will leave the universities filled with children of rich people (ie politicians), and the children of single parent, ethnic minority, lesbian and gay parents.

The rest of us (the silent majority) will still struggle to send our children to universities, where they will be saddled with £30,000 of debt on graduation, in the hope that they will be able to make a decent living and contribute to the coffers of the country.

Frankly, whats the point. This countries higher education system is going down the pan, no matter what any think tank comes up with. The only reason for the crackpot 50% goal was to reduce the number of school leavers hitting the streets, and reduce the unemployment statistics. Oh yes, this recession has been building for a lot longer than anyone thinks!

Gordon Brown - action man!

It's getting close to election time. We know because strange things are happening.

Gordy (et al) sent in special forces to get out a kidnapped journalist Stephen Farrell, and it was made damn sure that we all knew about it.

Never mind the fact that 2 people died ( a spec ops, and a translator), but our boys got him out.

As far as I know this doesn't usually happen like this. Normal there's days or weeks of intense hostage negotiations to try and resolve the situation before armed intervention is required.

But that doesn't really make the news does it?

Prisoner compassion

Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi released by a snivelling Kenny McAskill, on 'comapassionate' grounds, with no 'compunction' from any sources other than 'compassion' for a dying man.

Like no one else dies in prison, or everyone who's about too gets released? The Scottish government's been suspiciously quiet about how many other 'compassionate' releases there have been.

And of course there's been no 'under the counter' oil deals with Libya. Our government would never do that, would they? Apart from all the leaks that have been appearing about whos said what to who when (honestly, theres so much stuff, I can barely be bothered to list it).

I know this is a little late, but whats compelled me to write this is the decision by the justice secretary Jack Straw to pardon Michael Shields.

Michael was convicted, rightly or wrongly, in Bulgaria for manslaughter in 2005, and was allowed back to prison in the UK on compassionate grounds, with the expectation by the Bulgarian government that he would serve his time here.

It seems like more than happy coincidence to me that this happened so soon after Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was returned to Libya. One could see this as a cynical ploy by our gov to gain popularity, or to show that compassion is paramount in our justice system.

But I just can't get it out of my head that this is a diversion from Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi's release, to show that the reaction that the Libyan people gave was very similar to that shown by Michael's supporters, and that the Libyan people's reaction was in actual fact not so bad, and only to be expected, and fair enough, and we can show compassion to our people too, no matter how much it may annoy the Bulgarian government.

MoD challenges payments for injured soldiers

Bloody hell, I am inwardly seething about this. Soldiers go and give their lives, and receive horrific injuries, and then Gov challenges further payments because they have already been compensated, and the new injuries are subsequent complications and not the origiginal ones.

IF THEY HAD NOT RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL INJURIES THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE COMPLICATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets send a few of the fat cat politicians across to Afghanistan, and see how much of a hue and cry they would create if their living 'expenses' were affected.

Its a bloody disgrace. The compensation alone barely amounts to the same level as one MPs expenses claim.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/28/veterans-injured-soldiers-compensation

• Ministry wants to overturn tribunal's bigger payouts
• Anger and criticism from veterans and families

• Buzz up!
• Digg it

• Richard Norton-Taylor
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 July 2009 22.04 BST
• Article history

Diane Dernie, right, criticised MoD efforts to overturn awards to injured soldiers. Her son Ben Parkinson, centre, received £540,000. Photograph: Fiona Hanson/PA

The Ministry of Defence today brushed aside criticism of its attempt to cut compensation for wounded soldiers, telling the court of appeal that payments should be limited to the soldier's initial injury and not include subsequent disabilities.

Amid uproar from veterans and their families, the ministry argued that compensation must be based on objective criteria and not take into account an individual's particular circumstances.

The MoD is seeking to overturn a pensions appeal tribunal ruling that increased payments to Corporal Anthony Duncan, who was shot in 2005 while on patrol in Iraq, and Royal Marine Matthew McWilliams, who fractured his thigh in a military exercise the same year.

Duncan was awarded £9,250, but this was increased to £46,000 by the tribunal. McWilliams's £8,250 award was increased to £28,750. If the ruling stands, they will also both benefit from a guaranteed annual income when they leave the services.

The appeal court heard that although Duncan had undergone 11 operations, took two years to recuperate and one of his legs was shorter than the other, he was now "fully deployable". It emerged that he is fighting on the front line in southern Afghanistan. McWilliams is still in the Royal Marines, the MoD said.

The impact of disability may "vary considerably" depending on the individual, Nathalie Lieven QC, representing Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, told the court. The compensation scheme was specifically intended to measure objectively the impact of the injury.

"It was not about the level of disablement suffered at any particular date," she told Lord Justices Keene, Elias, and Carnwath.

Compensation should not be "tailored" to an individual's particular case, she said. If the tribunal had its way, she added, appropriate medical treatment would enable a soldier to claim more money. "That can't be right," Lieven told the court.

The MoD is due to review its compensation scheme next year. A spokeswoman said that it went to court to seek clarity on the scheme's basic principle – that the most seriously injured would receive the highest compensation.

However, with British casualties mounting in Afghanistan, the MoD's appeal has provoked strong and widespread criticism.

Diane Dernie, 51, mother of Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson who was blown up in Helmand in 2006, said the appeal showed the MoD was out of touch. She told the BBC: "It just beggars belief and proves that yet again they don't understand how people feel about our troops."

Dernie said the scheme is designed to make compensation claims quick and easy to process but does not recognise the possible long-term needs – both physical and mental – of injured soldiers.

Her son lost both his legs and suffered 37 other injuries including brain damage when the vehicle he was travelling in was blown up. He was initially awarded £152,150 in compensation, but after a high profile campaign by his mother the government ruled that service personnel would be awarded cash for all the injuries they receive in a single incident – rather than just the three most serious.

Parkinson, 25, had his compensation raised first to £285,000, then £540,000.

Simon Weston, a former Welsh Guardsman who suffered severe burns during the Falklands war, said the government was being "petty". He added: "It seems awful – it is almost car crash politics when they start doing something like this."

Lieutenant Colonel Jerome Church, of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, told Radio 4's Today programme: "This case is obviously appalling timing for the Ministry of Defence. The [current] scheme is an improvement over the old war pension in many ways. It is unique that it compensates people in service ... so that is an advantage." However, he said it was based on a "complex" tariff system that applied "remorseless logic".

Lawyers for Duncan and McWilliams argue that the compensation scheme must take into account the effect of the initial injury on an individual, including medical treatment.

The Conservative MP James Arbuthnot, who is chairman of the commons defence committee, said: "If the Ministry of Defence is appealing to keep the costs of looking after injured servicemen as low as possible, it sends the wrong message to people who are wondering whether to join the armed forces."

The hearing continues tomorrow.

In a separate development today, the MoD said 150 British service personnel are to be withdrawn from southern Iraq. The move follows the failure of the Iraqi parliament to ratify an agreement covering their status as trainers for the Iraqi navy. The MoD said the personnel are being withdrawn to Kuwait but will return to Iraq in September if not sooner.

A company with 600 employees

Saw this email the other day

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 600 employees, with the following statistics

29 accused of spouse abuse
7 arrested for fraud
9 accused of writing bad cheques
17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested for drug related charges
8 arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
54 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year

And collectively they have cost the taxpayer £92,993,748 in expenses, this year alone!

Guess the organisation.

Its the 635 members of the House of Commons, the same organisation that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year to keep the rest of us in line.

And just to top it all, they have the best corporate pension scheme in the country.

Middle classes left behind?

It seems that young people are being selected for the 'top' jobs, on the basis of parental affluence, and as a results large numbers of lower and middle class youngsters are being left behind.

There is a proposal to do some 'social engineering' to get these lower achievers into the 'better' universities.

Another load of ineffectual fiddling nonsense. The problem starts at the beginning of school life, not at the end. Those with lower qualifications have not done the work to achieve, or deserve, those places, no matter what the parental cause, and no amount of entry requirement adjustment is going to change those individuals capacity or desire to study, learn, and attain the grades in these hallowed centres of learning.

Far better to stream on academic (or other talent) capability early in life, help those children that require it more, and help those children that would benefit more too (ie teach according to capability), and reduce university fees to realistic levels, re introduce grants, and stop trying to get every Tom, Dick and Sally into Micky Mouse media studies courses.

(recently heard there's even a course on 2nd life at Lancaster University!!!!)

With the average unemployed time for university grad now 2 years, prospective students should be asked, what's the point of university, apart from getting pissed, and having a damn good time? Ok, fair point. Keeps them off the streets for 3 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5879286/Alan-Milburn-Middle-classes-being-left-behind.html

Expenses law - hooray - I think

So the expenses law has been passed with much aplomb.

Well most of it, anyway.

Well some of it at least. And it doesn't apply the Lords.

Ah, sod it, its a just a few lines of hot air, cos MPs didn't like being restricted, or threatened with (god forbid) laws that 'other' people have to follow.

Here's the text from the BBC new site

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8163502.stm

Revised 'expenses law' defended

Mr Brown said the bill was a world first

Gordon Brown has insisted laws passed to "clean up" Parliament in the wake of the MPs' expenses scandal are a world first - despite major concessions.

The Parliamentary Standards Bill became law after just three weeks of scrutiny in the Commons and the Lords.

But plans for a legally binding code of conduct and two new criminal offences had to be dropped to get it through.

The prime minister said the "essential elements", including an independent body to run expenses, were "intact".

Mr Brown announced in May he wanted a legally binding code of conduct for MPs and in June the government outlined plans for three new criminal offences for MPs.

Commons defeat

The code of conduct was dropped, as were two of the three offences as the bill progressed through Parliament, amid heavy criticism.

A third contentious issue - allowing MPs' words, usually protected by Parliamentary privilege, to be used against them in court - was defeated in a Commons vote when 20 Labour MPs rebelled.

Initial plans to have the bill apply to the Lords too were dropped and the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority had some of its enforcement powers removed.

We are the first in the world to do something like this Gordon Brown The new rules for MPs explained Expenses clean-up bill is passed

As MPs debated the final stages of the bill on Tuesday, Tory backbencher Mark Field said: "They may get a few good headlines tomorrow morning about how they've got the bill through but the bill has itself already been emasculated."

At his last press conference before the summer recess, Mr Brown was asked why his pledges had "disappeared".

"It has not disappeared at all. The central elements of the bill are there," he said.

Mr Brown said the bill meant an end to self regulation by creating an independent authority to regulate their affairs and handing it the power to develop financial interest rules for MPs.

He added that the important new offence had survived and it created a criminal offence for fraudulent expenses claims.

"Just as local government and just as in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, where there is fraud that is now punishable by a particular offence related to members of Parliament, a year in prison."

"So all the essential elements of the legislation are not only intact but we are the first in the world to do something like this that makes all self regulation a thing of the past and moves towards statutory regulation for the future."

Not sure who said this

Heard something priceless on the radio today, not sure who said it as only caught a snatch, or what the context was, but I recognised the voice as one of our esteemed female MPs

"We're not going to fritter away tax payers money"


!!!!!!!!!!!!

Teachers MOT is not a good idea

http://conorfryan.blogspot.com/2009/07/teachers-mot-is-good-idea.html

While there may be great ideals behind validating a teachers ability to teach with preset tests and box ticking score cards, and while I do not have a great deal of sympathy with the so called work and stress levels that teachers purport to go through, I can not help but feel that this exercise is yet another example of gov's attempts to justify itself with pointless, expensive, quango supporting procedures in order to show Joe Public that it does stuff.

How much will it cost - loads.

What will it achieve - absolutely nothing apart from raising the stress levels (on a real basis this time) of teachers trying to attain marks or a score that will allow them to keep a job that just like the rest of real life gets the most benefit in terms of progression and ability through experience, and not by being able to tick boxes.

Yet again another example of fiddling where none is needed, required, or wanted, that will have the reverse effect of that desired - ie will actually drive down standards as teachers try to conform to a set of artificially imposed 'norms'

Shahid Malik - yet a bloody gain

This is getting beyond a joke.

Why's he still in the government?

Why's he still an MP?

Why's he not been arrested?

From the times

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
Published: 7:00AM BST 17 Jun 2009

John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, has decided to hold a formal inquiry into Mr Malik’s expenses claims.

His decision will be a political embarrassment to Gordon Brown, who reappointed Mr Malik to the Government last week, after he was cleared by a previous inquiry of breaking ministerial rules.

The MP for Dewsbury had stepped down as a minister last month after The Daily Telegraph reported a claim by his landlord, Tahir “Terry” Zaman, that he was charging Mr Malik well below the market rent for his Yorkshire home.

Sir Philip Mawer, an independent adviser to Mr Brown, cleared Mr Malik of breaking ministerial rules over those rental arrangements. However, Sir Philip did not look at whether Mr Malik broke separate House of Commons rules on expenses.

Following Mr Malik’s reappointment, the Telegraph last week disclosed that the MP had claimed public money meant to fund members’ offices, to pay rent on “office space” in his house in his Yorkshire constituency.

At the same time, he was claiming under a separate allowance to fund his designated second home in London.

After receiving a complaint from a member of the public, Mr Lyon’s office yesterday confirmed he would investigate. His findings will be made public and passed to the Commons standards and privileges committee, which can recommend suspension of MPs.

Mr Malik said in a statement last week that as well as the £6,000 he claimed on his allowances for his main constituency office in Dewsbury, he claimed another £200 a month for “additional office space” between 2005 and 2008.

That additional space was the downstairs of a Dewsbury house, he said, and upstairs was his “living accommodation”. He said he paid the rent on the upstairs himself.

The relevant edition of the Green Book, the rules for MPs’ expenses, makes clear that MPs cannot claim rent for an office in their home.

The minister also faces questions about statements he made to the Commons authorities about his designated “main home”.

Last week, he said that until he sold it last year, his designated “main home” was in Burnley.

Commons rules say an MP’s “main home” is where he spends more nights than any other. Mr Malik has publicly stated that he lived in Dewsbury from 2004.

Asked yesterday whether Mr Brown still had confidence in Mr Malik, the Prime Minister’s spokesman said: “Yes”. He will not step down as a minister during the inquiry. Downing Street said there were “many precedents” for this.

Mr Malik said in a statement last week that he had “acted at all times within parliamentary rules”.

Brian Binley £57,000 expenses

Direct copy form the mirror

Nuff said

A tory Mp claimed £57,000 in taxpayer-funded expenses to rent a flat from his own company.

Brian Binley raked in £1,500 a month to rent the flat in Central London for more than three years despite House of Commons rules banning MPs from renting properties from themselves or their firms.

The Northampton South MP, 67, was first told the expenses were not allowed in April 2006. But he was allowed to continue claiming until April this year after making an appeal to Speaker Michael Martin, it was claimed.

Meanwhile, Labour's Jim Devine was barred by the party from standing at the next election amid the expenses storm.

The MP for Livingston, West Lothian, is said to have claimed for £2,100 home repairs on a fake receipt and £2,300 for shelving done by a pub landlord. He denied wrongdoing.

Radio switch off

In about 2015 anologue (am and fm) radio will be turned off, in favour of an all digital radio.

Thats 5 years to ensure a good proportion of national coverage ( i think they are saying 90%).

5 years to get all the radios changed - watch the electronics junk mountain grow.

5 years to get car radios updated - so that digital will even work in them (too much movement of the reciever leads to poor reception and resolution in poor signal areas)

Transmitter numbers will need to be increased to increase coverage.

Who gets to pay for this- who do you think.

Will it be done in time - what do you think (analogue tv's about to be turned off, and there's still a boat load of numties who don't know what a set top box is)

Still Gov'll be able to sell lots of shiny licenses to small 'community and local' stations - who do you think'll get that money?

Tax on telephones

Here we go - yet another crappy gov idea that everyone else has to pay for whether they want it or not.

The premise - get superfast broadband into everyone's homes by year x.

Get everyone else to pay for it - £6 per year to subsidise - prob won't cover the full costs, and those in urban / suburban areas will be subsidising those in rural areas.

Most older people aren't interested anyway.

For crying out load, just leave the market places alone, and let them decide for themselves, stop interfering, we don't want it.

Hazel Blears is sorry!

Bless

Hazel regrets doing what she did on the eve of the european elections, and denies that it was meant to inflict maximal damage on Gordy. She says it wasn't a plot to to get rid of the pm, and wants to get back to helping the labour party connect with the British people.

No, someone who make a decision to resign on the eve of an election, who wears a brooch with the words "Rocking the boat", and makes a speech commenting on Gordies youtube appearence, with the the title "YouTube if you want to", is not one of Gordies fans.

But to then say she didn't mean it, she apologised, it was regrettable that she caused such a firestorm, might be seen by some as an act of genuine contrition.

Until you see that the government didn't collapse (as a cynic might have thought she thought it would), that her constituency is looking at ways to remove her, that Gordie wants her back, and that he had written 'a really nice letter following her resignation'.

Others might see that as out and out hypocrisy.

Shahid Malik - still

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/11/shahis-malik-expenses-admission

After just yesterday posting about the re instatement of Mr Malik the fishy smell grows.

Hes been claiming for 2 offices in two homes, when he may have had only one, or two, with living area, or one with living area, or just living area - AAAAAARGGGGGH!

C'mon Gordy - are you really that stupid to re instate this crook (strong language from me I know), or has he got something on you, or perhaps he's vowed to be a crony.

Just in case it gets lost, here's the full text of th article from the Guardian

Shahid Malik has admitted that he claimed costs of office space in his constituency home as well as his designated second home simultaneously, according to the Daily Telegraph.

The admission comes within days of the MP for Dewsbury being reinstated in government by Gordon Brown as part of his reshuffle.

The prime minister brought Malik back to the fold as communities minister just weeks after he stepped down as justice minister in the wake of reports in the Telegraph that he was paying well below the market rate for the rent of his home in his constituency.

Brown made the appointment after receiving assurances from Malik that his financial affairs were in order.

But it emerged yesterday that Malik had claimed more than £6,500 for a property described as "office 2" on his parliamentary claim form, which has turned out to be the ground floor of his constituency home in Dewsbury.

Malik said he needed the extra office space because the constituency office he inherited was not big enough. But his expense files show he moved out of the original office into a new office in April 2006 but continued to claim £200 a month on his office allowance for "office 2" until at least April 2008, according to the newspaper.

Malik insisted last night that he paid rent separately for the "living area" of his consituency home. However, no formal rental agreement existed for the "living area" and Malik did not disclose how much rent he paid.

The Telegraph said he confirmed his controversial "two homes on expenses"arrangements last night.

Brown's official spokesman made clear it was up to Malik to explain his use of public money.

Malik reportedly told the Telegraph that he had rented the office space because the office he inherited from his predecessor as Dewsbury MP, Ann Taylor, had been too small, he said. "I rented additional office space in my constituency because the office which I took over from my predecessor did not have enough room to accommodate my staff, who were working with me to serve the needs of my constituents.

"I worked from the additional office space between Thursday and Monday and during recess periods and a member of my staff was also based there until moving to the new offices in 2007."

Commons documents show that Malik left his predecessor's office in April 2006 and began claiming Commons office expenses on a new office, in a shopping parade on Daisy Hill.

Malik has claimed £6,000 a year for the rent on the office in Daisy Hill since then.

Both his constituency office and constituency home are owned by Tahir Zaman, a friend of Malik, according to the paper.

Malik stood down from government last month when it was reported that he was paying Zaman well below the market rate.

Brown brought him back into government after an investigation by Sir Philip Mawer, the prime minister's adviser on ministerial rules, cleared Marlik of any failure to comply with the ministerial code.

After initially resisting, Brown has agreed to publish an edited sumary of Mawer's report.

The prime minister's spokesman stressed that Mawer's investigation related to allegations of a breach of the ministerial code in relation to supposedly preferential rent offered to Malik on his Dewsbury home.

Questions relating to his expenses claims were for the MP himself to answer.

Asked whether the prime minister was confident that Malik had been completely frank with Sir Philip about the financial arrangements surrounding the Dewsbury property, Brown's spokesman said: "We would expect all government ministers to comply fully with the independent investigator and we have no reason to believe that's not the case with Shahid Malik."

The spokesman stressed that Mawer's investigation related to allegations of a breach of the ministerial code in relation to supposedly preferential rent offered to Malik on his Dewsbury home.

Questions relating to his expenses claims were for the MP himself to answer.

Transparency for everyone - Shahid too!

Shahid Malik has been cleared of any expense inproprieties, so it says in a report by Sir Phillip (must be good, has a Sir in the title).

In the new spirit of transparency we (the great unwashed non politicians) weren't to be allowed to see what it says because it contained personal details.

However, in the spirit of Gordon wanting to keep his job (for a while), he has bowed to public pressure, and a 'sanitised' version of the report will now be published.

Oh, and Mr Malik got his job back at the ministry (in the Dept of Communities and local justice instead of the Dept of Justice at least).

Now, is it just me, or does this smell a bit fishy? We are told that we can't see the report on a 'public' servant (if you don't want the publicity, don't go in for a job which by its very nature is in the public eye), and then we are told by a grovelling snivelling power clinging political leader in the last days of a corrupt government, 'oh all right then we can see a little bit of it, because we know whats best for you, and if we don't then you might get a bit shirty'

I'm sorry Gordy, the whole point of everything thats been happening over the last few weeks should have told you that we aren't standing for this hidden from public view nonsense any more - if we want to know about any aspect of a politicians life, if it concerns the performance of his duties or his remunuration for whatever reason, then the public - the paymaster - should have a right to know - if you don't want to confuse the two, then don't confuse the two. There should no issue ever of privacy for these sorts of reports (I agree the case is different for security reasons, but this clearly isn't), everything should be out in the open, published, and available to see, then we wouldn't need the guardian to do this necessary work.

source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5494389/Gordon-Brown-forced-into-revealing-report-on-Shahid-Malik-finances.html

Lest we forget

Copied from Mirror.co.uk
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/05/29/expenses-row-three-mps-to-stand-down-but-taxpayers-will-foot-1-2m-bill-115875-21397425/

Expenses row: Three MPs to stand down... but taxpayers will foot £1.2m bill

By Bob Roberts and Jason Beattie29/05/2009

Three more MPs were forced to quit yesterday over the expenses scandal - but they will still rake in £100,000 each in taxpayers' cash in "golden goodbyes".

The three included brazen Tory Julie Kirkbride who finally bowed to public fury over her lavish claims.

It brings the number of MPs standing down to 12 - yet because they refuse to go now, they will still be taking our money until Gordon Brown goes to the country.

Incredibly, the cost to the taxpayer of parachute payments and winding-up schemes for the 12 could run to £1.2million. And that does not include their £64,766 pay... or expenses.

There was anger yesterday that not one has agreed to quit immediately.

One furious constituent in Ms Kirkbride's Bromsgrove seat said: "She should go right now. We have already shelled out more than enough on her."

Last night it was also revealed that record numbers of MPs have applied for peerages after the next election.

At least 52 Labour members - a seventh of those elected in 2005 - are said to have approached Downing Street to request a seat in the House of Lords.

Ms Kirkbride, 48, finally announced her decision to quit at 1.10pm yesterday following revelations that she spent £50,000 on a home extension. This came on top of her "double-dipping" with husband Andrew MacKay.

Just a minute earlier, Labour's Margaret Moran, 54, quit following the news she claimed £22,500 for dry rot at her partner's home in Southampton - 100 miles away from her constituency.

Conservative Christopher Fraser, who claimed more than £1,800 in expenses to mark out the boundary of his house, also announced he was stepping down.

And the Mirror can reveal Labour MP Elliot Morley will tell his constituency party this weekend he has had enough and will go at the next general election.

If the MPs stepped down now they would not be eligible for the parachute payment under Commons rules.

But by hanging on until the election, due within a year, Ms Moran gets a payoff of £93,125 when she goes. This includes a parachute payment of £50,517 and a "winding up" allowance of £42,608.

Ms Kirkbride will walk away with at least £74,000.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said it showed the need to reform the constitution to give people the right to sack their MP. He said: "If MPs feel they have done badly enough to stand down then people should have the right to sack them and not wait until the election."

In Ms Moran's Luton South constituency, pensioner Gilbert Green, 67, said: "She's not standing in Luton, especially now. She should stand down straight away. She can't show her face."

Joshua Clarke, 27, added: "Standing down is not enough. She needs to pay the money back at least, and maybe do community service."

Ms Moran blamed stress and health problems for her decision. She said: "The anger in the media and among the public over the issue of Parliamentary expenses has had a bruising effect upon my friends, my family and my health."

Ms Kirkbride's news followed days of insisting she would not go. Tory leader David Cameron had previously backed her but after a phone chat with him yesterday, she said: "I must take into account the effects on my family. I understand people's anger about MPs' expenses, but I have been subject to a barrage of distorted stories which I have sought to rebut. This pressure on my party workers and me has to end."

Piling the pressure on the MP was housewife and mum of four Louise Marnell, 43, who was so angry at Ms Kirkbride she launched a Julie To Go campaign and petition in Bromsgrove, West Mids. Four thousand signatures later, Louise said: "All you need to know is that I'm a normal housewife and my husband is a builder. I've never been involved in politics or anything like that. I'm too busy doing the things that mums do, trying to make ends meet."

A senior Labour source said he expected the resignations, which include Commons Speaker Michael Martin, to be only the start. The party expected Mr Morley, who claimed for a mortgage he had already paid off, to go. Others would follow when Labour's "star chamber" finished its probe. Officials from the Parliamentary Fees Office have spoken for the first time about how the scandal developed.

Speaking anonymously to the BBC, one source said there was a "tea room chain" at Westminster. When one MP remortgaged to get a higher claim the honourable member would tell pals and soon there would be "a gold rush" of others claiming the same thing.

Meanwhile Esther Rantzen, who had announced she would stand against Ms Moran, said she may still fight the seat if local people wanted her to.

And Barack Obama's former brotherin-law Ian Manners, 56, announced he will try to stand as a Tory candidate after disgraced Andrew MacKay steps down in Bracknell, Berks. Mr Manners said: "This is not a gimmick. I would do better than most of the current crop."

TOLL OF MPs FELLED IN EXPENSES SCANDAL
Douglas Hogg, Conservative
Claimed £2,115 to have his moat cleared. Also claimed for piano tuning and £671 for mole catcher.

Sir Peter Viggers, Conservative
Filed a £30,000 claim for a gardening bill including a duck island for his pond.

Anthony Steen, Conservative
Spent £87,729 in four years on upkeep of his "very large" mansion people are "jealous of".

Andrew Mackay, Conservative
Julie Kirkbride's husband. Claimed second home expenses but had no first home in his constituency.

Sir Nicholas Winterton Conservative
Husband of Ann. Together claimed £120,000 to rent a flat from a family trust.

Ann Winterton, Conservative
Wife of Nicholas. Together claimed £120,000 to rent a flat from a family trust.

Michael Martin, Speaker
To quit after MPs attacked him for trying to keep expenses secret. Claimed £1,400 for chauffeur.

Ben Chapman, Labour
Will step down after overclaimed £15,000 mortgage interest payments by mistake.

Ian McCartney, Labour
Leaving due to bad health. Has repaid almost £15,000 expenses including champagne flutes.

The scalps which were claimed
By Bob Roberts

The scalps which were claimed yesterday show how deep the expenses scandal is cutting.

Previously, those who had gone had been Westminster's old guard. The fusty, old-fashioned Tory squires Sir Peter Viggers, Anthony Steen and Douglas Hogg announced they were quitting when few of them would have been expected to carry on for long anyway.

From Labour, Elliot Morley is facing possible deselection and David Chaytor has been suspended. Even if they stay in Westminster they will be in the shady obscurity of the backbenches. But Julie Kirkbride and Margaret Moran are not the semi-retired wing of either the Conservative or Labour parties.

They are both modern women who came to Parliament in 1997 after having successful careers outside.

Kirkbride, 48, was a feisty daughter of a truck driver who became a Daily Telegraph political journalist and then an MP.

She could have expected a ministerial post in a David Cameron government.

Margaret Moran, 54, a former Catholic schoolgirl, had been the leader of Lewisham Council in London before becoming an MP. As a leading campaigner against domestic violence and child abuse, few would have thought her career was finished until three weeks ago.

But their falls shows no one is safe as the axe in the expenses scandal keeps swinging and public anger shows no sign of easing.

The question now is: who is next?

And the MPs are trembling in the tearooms - because no one knows the answer.

Rain forests, global warming blah blah

Those that know me may be surprised to know that I am a great proponent of global warming, and looking for ways of saving the human race (the planet will be fine, it will just get rid of the human race, and start again).

The thing that we do is burn fossil fuels and dump CO2 by the millions of tons into the atmosphere. Then expect it to be soaked up by trees around the world. One of the biggest places being the Amazon rain forest.

For years we have been harping on about the Brazilians destroying their natural habitat, and the earths lungs (for those stupids out there, at a very basic level trees suck up CO2, and release O2). CO2 of course isn't the only greenhouse gas, and the complete picture is a bit more complicated than that.

But, I was listening to Costing the Earth today on Radio 4, where some Brazilian / Amazonian politicians / landowners were talking, and they were getting a bit sick of being told by the rest of the world not to tear down their rainforest, where they could make an income from it by doing so. Effectively they want to be paid for having the trees providing a service to the planet. Totally understandable.

The US has effectively deforested for the sake of urban expansion, and farming, and now expects Brazil not to do so.

So, a solution. There should be (another) tax on all fuel usage, to go, not to governments, but to a big global pot of money. There would be outcry, prices of other goods and services would go up as a result (perhaps there may even be less fuel usage as a result), but we all have to pay for using the Earth.

From there, all land owners who have trees should be paid for having trees, and maintaining and keeping trees instead of cutting them down. Whether this be countries / governments or individuals.

Hideously complicated and expensive I know, and 3rd world countries will suffer from land grabbers (previously worthless land will become an income source, and therefore attractive to politicians and other lowlifes), but a start nevertheless.

Many believe that we have already passed the tipping point, so maybe Hazel Blears was right - grab as mush as you can while you can.

£1645 for a duck island.

£1645 for a duck island!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On expenses. Amongst total expense claim of £30 odd 000.

Sir Peter Viggers. Why are you still knighted. Where are Inland revenue. Why have you not been clapped in irons.

This is not just amoral, and wrong, its got to be illegal.

The inland revenue need to look at each and every MP over the last 7 years, look at all the expense claims, and get back taxes, with interest and fines. Just like everyone else.

School holidays

Just heard some utter twit on breakfast tv this morning (tuned in a bit late, so didn't get his credentials or name), but either a teacher or head, along with the opposite view parent, talking about taking children out of school for holidays.

Parents stance - its much cheaper to do so, it affects child school progress very little, it's good for family time, and it's educational (cross cultural learning, and language development). Personally I utterly agree with this, we have taken our children out of school for holidays, and it has mad absolutely no impact on their school progression whatsoever.

Twit's - oops teacher's - stance, and this statement really stood out - poor child performance has been unequivocally linked to poor attendance. Of this I have absolutely no doubt, but you have to link holidays to poor attendance, and of that there is no evidence - ie do parents who take their children away on holidays also allow thir children to poorly attend. Perhaps, but poor attendance is more likely to be a chronic, repeated poor attendance throughout the year, rather than just a 2 week or so period one off.

Other anti in term holidays arguments - its disruptive to teaching - well that was about it really.

The snob also commented that he had sympathy with parents who took children on educational trips as opposed to the Marbella - hmmm - wonder what Marbellan residents have to say about that.

The problem - holiday providers (hotels, tour operators etc) all inflate their prices for school holidays, sometimes double or more compared to term time, so it is very tempting for parents to go, with or without permission.

The solution - change the shool term system, so there is no holiday price bias. Instead of fixed terms, have teaching all year round, and allow children to have an amount of time off over the year, whenever they want. They would have to make themselves available at certain times to attend for instance exams.

Downside for teachers - they would only get 5 weeks or so holiday a year, just like the rest of us, instead of the 13 weeks or so they get now (fully paid of course), together with all the training days held during what would normally be classed a teaching day, forcing the parents to take time off work in order to look after the offspring (what goes on in a training day anyway?)

Now perhaps we see the real reason for teachers reluctance to allow out of term holidays - it would just be the thin end of the wedge, the slippery slope to have to work all year, instead of the ridiculous holidays they have now.

Don't get me wrong, I have far more respect for teachers than I do for politicians, and most of them do a fine job of teaching, often under difficult circumstances, but the holidays, and the insistance on keeping them is just out dated.

The speaker

So the speakers done the honourable thing and stepped down. Or according to Hilary Ben, has put everyone else and the rest of the House of Scheisters, I mean Commons first before himself.

Or was it that the effusive apology and attempt to cling on to his position just wasn't enough to stop the back stabbing trough snorting power mongers demanding that he go, and take the blame for what they have been doing for years?

Getting someone to resign doesn't excuse the years of fingers deep in the pie of 'rules allowed' expenses claims, just because they were unable to keep it hidden from the great unwashed. Or is that the real reason he had to go - because he couldn't obfuscate the freedom of information flow, and keep it hidden from us?

Whatever the case, some MPs are now worried that if public opinion could get the speaker's head to roll, then which one of them is next?

Expenses - again!

Its been a while since my last post, but it's really looking like fun in London at the moment.

"The House of Commons authorities have asked police in London to investigate the leaking of details of MPs' expenses."

"A spokesman for the House claimed that there were "reasonable grounds to believe a criminal offence may have been committed". "

I'll bloody say.

£6000 for a cleaner for Gordy and his brother

Jack Straw claiming back full council tax for 4 years, when he was only paying 50% for a second home. And claiming for work done on his own constituency home under the second home allowance rules to repair dilapidated fixings (which one was the 'second' home then?)

Hazel Blears switching second home allowance 3 times to 3 different properties in the space of one year.

The list goes on.

When interviewed, the universal reply is that they've done nothing wrong, as it was all within the rules. Who made the rules?

No wonder the country's sick to the eye teeth of this lot. And they sit there and wonder what's going on.

On MPs pay

Here's how I would do it.

1. Pay MPs a salary - £60 or £70K not unreasonable, as lets face it is quite stressful - having to smile all the time, and listen to what your civil servants and publicists, and advisors tell you what to say.
2. Abolish all expenses, and staff expenses, and second homes.
3. Provide accommodation for MPs who have to stay in London, at a reduced rent of course. Have heard the olympic village idea - its a good one.
4. Staff used by MPs vetted and paid for by parliament - no MP involvement in remunuration.
5. Review pension provisions to MPs - they currently get a £30,000 pot after their first term (or thereabouts) - let them feel the same pain as everyone else.
5. Supply electric cars to all MPs for use in London - lead by example.

It is said that fewer quality people will be attracted to politics if the remunuration is reduced - my question is should that sort of person be wanted to serve us anyway? Should not people who want to be MPs want to be MPs for reasons other than what they can gorge at the trough? Just thinking aloud.

Budget day!!

Al's going to come up with another world saving budget today.

Not.

More than likely just a load of publicised and hidden tweeks here and there which have a net effect on the average person of +/- zilch, just add more bureaucracy to business, and make this country less and less attractive as somewhere to live for people born here.

Flat rate fro going to work.

Gordon Brown's going to scrap the second home, and other expenses allowances, and take more control of employing MPs staff (like family members who are paid to review films (Jacqui Smith)).

Its going to amount to £125 / day, which in some cases could take them to a level greater than there current 2nd home allowance (£25,000 cf £23,000)

Now, this sounds like a good deal - for MPs, and typically another ill thought through knee jerk face and self saving response to the general publics disquiet and disgust at the snouts in the trough mentality of today's career politicians.

Personally I get a daily allowance for turning up to work too - its called a salary.

Once again, isn't it about time that politicians were paid for the work that they do, a standard salary package, and with that they make the appropriate choices on how they use that money - just like the rest of us.

Hazel Blear to resign?

So Hazel's revealed documents, just like Bob Quick did a few weeks ago.

Bob did the decent thing, and resigned quickly.

How about it Hazel, resigning too, or are you waiting for the flat rate payments revealed by the document contents. No wonder the big smile.

Second homes, second homes, anyone?

Geoff Hoon, Alaistair Darling - they're all at it. Get your second homes here, all expenses paid, an the uk taxpayer, tax free.

Look at the Geoff Hoon love site for more interesting snippets.

Got it wrong again Darling.

Not something my wife's said to me, but the fact that (surprise surprise) Alistair Darling can no longer disguise with flim flam the fact that the UK budgetery plans are going pear shaped. A gloss is being painted on it, but you can just see this is going to get worse than the prediction even here.

"LONDON (SHARECAST) - The British economy is in for a tough year, warns Chancellor Alistair Darling who’s owned up to underestimating the depth of the downturn.

"I remain optimistic that we will get back into growth, but 2009 will be a difficult year," he told the BBC ahead of the annual Budget on 22 April.

Darling is widely tipped to dramatically revise growth forecasts announced in last November’s Pre-Budget Report. Then, he predicted the start of a recovery in the second half of the year.

Now, it looks like the start of 2009 was no better than the last quarter of 2008 when Britain’s economy shrank by 1.6%. “In the first three months of this year I have seen nothing that doesn't tell me that this position is going to be equally bad,” he said.

"If you look at the problems we have got at the moment, there is no doubt that the depth of this recession here and across the world is far greater than people were predicting last year.”

Darling is expected to predict the UK economy will contract by between 2.5% and 3% in 2009, that’s the worst performance since World War Two.

Meanwhile, a report commissioned by the BBC found that the UK’s deficit is about 2.7% more than Darling acknowledged in November.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said the government may have to find an extra £39bn a year by the end of 2015/16 to plug the gap in its finances.

If the government decided to use only tax-raising measures to balance the books, it would cost the average family about £1,250 a year in taxes."

Source Sharecast

MPs enjoy generous tax breaks

It seems that for tax purposes MPs are better than us. They are allowed to have 2 homes and have it set off against tax.

Telsgraph link

IMHO, all MPs expenses should be got rid of, they should be paid a salary, and out of that fund all their second homes, and so on - just like the rest of us. If they require staff, they should be paid for by parliament, not by the MP.

Our illustrious Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, has been caught. Her husband, in her second home, for which she claims a second house allowance, all of a few miles away from her primary residence (a flat she shares with her sister in London, go figure), has been downloading porn from the internet service provider (Virgin), and billing it to the account of the right honourable. About time we changed these disgusting expense and second home rules. Funnily enough the rest of the bunch are staying surprisingly quiet.

Now, what were the films he was watching?