My first post titled Irony was quite good, and involved Iain Dale. But this one is a cracker. And involves Iain Dale again.
(I was going to call this post something else and now this first bit doesn’t really work. I’m lazy and I like that post linked to so it stays.)
Mr Watson complained of an article by Iain Dale, headed “Smears, glowering henchmen-like the Nixon White House” published in the Mail on Sunday on 12 April 2009 in which it was stated not only that Mr Watson was copied into emails sent by Downing Street press adviser Damian McBride to Derek Draper, but that he “encouraged” them. The emails were reported to have made serious and false allegations about the private lives of a number of Conservative Party MPs in the course of discussing proposals for a new website to be known as “Red Rag”.
As the Court heard today, Associated Newspapers Limited now accepts that these allegations are entirely untrue. In fact, Mr Watson was not copied into any of the emails exchanged between Mr McBride and Mr Draper. As Mr Watson has already publicly made clear, he had no involvement in or knowledge of the “Red Rag” website and he did not condone the content of the emails and, indeed, regarded them as completely inappropriate.
…and then gives a couple of different stories about having already apologised to Tom. Once in this post, which has no apology at all, and this one here that nearly has an apology. Well, Iain says an apology is owed, but never gets around to actually saying ‘I’m sorry’ or ‘I apologise’ or anything similar that says sorry.
Smug? Oh I’m just happy you forced Associated Newspaper to pay out “substantial damages” and its now on the record that you have smeared people without fully knowing the facts.
But Iain doesn’t just smear people and let other people do the same in his own comments, he likes to control other peoples comments, one of the things that he used to accuse Tim of regularly…
Comment amended upon request. So far she has not offered any explanation for claiming the amount of expenses. Comment amended upon request.
Comment by jailhouselawyer — Sunday, May 17, 2009 @ 11:47 am
I hope you will delete that comment from JHL. It is entirely untrue and probably libellous.
Comment by Iain Dale — Tuesday, May 19, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
Iain I have amended the comment. However, when I consider some of the comments I have seen you allow on your blog which attack other people on issues of both sexuality and on mental health, I think you should be paying far more attention to your own comments.
Comment by The Morningstar — Tuesday, May 19, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
Only last night self proclaimed leading UK blogger Iain Dale accused me of allowing an untrue and potentially libelous comment to be posted on this blog, here. The comment was aimed at one of his friends, that doyen of political blogging Nadine Dorries, I stupidly just gave in and amended the comment without consulting the author. At the time I didn’t want to start a ridiculous fight over a comment, mental health issues can suck the fight right out of you, but when I realised the the comment was essentially factual I Apologized to the author and posted a link to the relevant news paper story.
So Iain Dale lied to me, on this blog, in order to get a comment removed that was factual.
So, I present to you the King of Irony, Iain Dale.
A question for Nadine Dorries on her post The Daily Telegraph (I’m telling you the title of the post and not just linking to it because her main-website-intergrated-blog doesn’t have post pages)…
Charlie*, the difference is, Newspapers do not spend public money on expenses. I do not care if a journo claims £48 on a bottle of wine, takes it home and then claims it on his expenses because I wasn’t forced to contribute to it.
Now Nadine, about this second home, do you or do you not have a second home?
Is this ‘somewhere else’ yours or someone elses? If it is yours, then no problem. If it isn’t then I think you may be in a sticky position.
It’s logged here because Nadines got comment moderation enabled.
*Charlie says…
I would be very interested to read about journalists’ expenses because if politicians are lying scum – journalists are twenty times worse.
In the same vein, maybe the Daily Mail should sort out it’s top man, Lord Rothermere, to avoid any hint of hypocrasy. Especially since the organisation the Mail has teamed up with is The Taxpayers Alliance.
The Daily Mail has joined up with the Taxpayers Alliance (TPA) to try and get some of these grubby politicians prosecuted, by private prosecutions if neccersary, for the the outragous expenses claims that have been coming to light over the last week or so thanks to the Telegraph.
I’m all for that, but the two organisations, the Mail and TPA, are two unlikely bedfellows.
is Britain’s independent grassroots campaign for lower taxes.
…and basically, if the government spend some money, these guys say they could’ve spent less of it. So it comes as a bit of a surprise that a group so concerned about tax should jointly launch a campaign to recover taxpayers money with a company that at it’s head, has someone trying, and successfully avoiding all the tax he can. After all, if these rich business people payed what was due of them, as apposed to the bare minimum they can get away with after lots of creative accounting, then the burden for all of us could probably come down a little.
/afterthought…
Maybe it’s not such a strange partnership. They’re both working to the same ends: The TPA by nagging the government not to spend any money and Lord Rothermere by stopping the government spending money by not giving them any.
Today Mark Thomas, political activist, commentator, performer, writer and comedian has instructed his lawyers, Leigh Day & Co to write to the Speaker of the House of Commons threatening legal action unless a full transparent review is urgently ordered into the scandal of MPs expenses.
Mr Thomas has been advised that the approach peddled by MPs in the press that their unreasonable expenses are within the rules is not correct. In fact, the current scandal has been largely caused by attempts by many MPs to stretch the rules far beyond their ordinary meaning and an unwillingness by the House of Commons Department of Finance and Administration officials to rein them in.
The letter requires Speaker Martin, as Chair of the House of Commons Commission to take urgent steps to commence a review of the Department’s actions in dealing with MPs’ applications for expenses. The following steps are set down as the bare minimum requirements:
To obtain and publish independent authoritative legal advice & guidance on the meaning of the MPs’ expenses rules, to be consistent with other guidance applicable to the public where similar words are used
To appoint independent accountants to audit all claims by MPs in the current parliament against the legal advice and guidance obtained
To consider auditing all claims by MPs back to May 1997, applying consistent principles which would be applied in cases of false/excessive claims against other public authorities or the HMRC
To explain publicly what sums have been wrongly paid out to members and to set out proposals for recoupment where overpayments have been made, such recoupment to be no more favourable to MPs than the system for recovery of benefits overpayments or income tax underpayments
To report possibly fraudulent claims to the Metropolitan Police fraud squad for investigation.
The Speaker has been given 14 days to respond, failing which Judicial Review proceedings may follow.
Mark Thomas said:
“MPs are not above the law. If they have wrongly claimed expenses they should be made to repay. If they have acted fraudulently the police should be involved. This is what would happen to all of us as members of the public if we tried to fiddle public money.
Fraudulent benefit claimants are not allowed to form committees comprised of benefit claimants to investigate their misdemeanours. Nor can exposed tax cheats offer to pay back money because they are ‘concerned about how it looks to the outside world’ and then walk away with no repercussion.
If I need to go to court I will be making a public appeal to cover the legal costs of the case, which I’m sure will have overwhelming support! ”
Richard Stein, partner at Leigh Day & Co said:
“The main problem here is not the rules governing payment of MPs’ expenses, but how they have been applied. Many MPs have made claims which do not properly fall within the rules. The rules say that MPs have a responsibility to satisfy themselves that expenditure claimed has been ‘wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred’ for the purpose of performing their Parliamentary duties and that overspent or mischarged amounts may be recovered. The House of Commons authorities must now take steps to make sure this happens”
Reading Chris Mullin’s excellent diaries, “A View from the Foothills”, I came across this entry from 1 May 2002: “Apparently, under the Freedom of Information Act, by January 2005, MPs’ expenses will be subject to public scrutiny, retrospectively. Goodness knows what mayhem that will cause. ‘We are in a jam,’ said Robin Cook. ‘Few members have yet tumbled to the juggernaut heading their way.'”
Seven years. Count them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. That is a long time, in or out of politics.
Seven years to clean up your tracks, to clean up your bevaviour, to think of a better excuse than ‘Oh dear. How silly of me’.
What stupid thick bastards/arrogant shits do we have running this place that even with seven years notice they still fuck it up for themselves?
I think I’m gonna go rope shopping at the weekend. The lamposts round my way need some decorating.
Elliot Morley, a former fisheries and environment minister, claimed £800 per month for a property in Scunthorpe when the mortgage had already been paid.
Mr Morley told the BBC he repaid the money after realising he had mistakenly continued claiming for his mortgage payments after it was repaid in 2006.
Didn’t he wonder why the statements from the mortgage company stopped? Didn’t he wonder why he was suddenly £800 up in his bank every month FOR 20 MONTHS?!
How do these cunting fucks expect us to believe a word they fucking say when they put fucking stupid shit like this down to ‘a mistake’?
Either they are fucking bent and need prosecuting for fraud or they are so fucking stupid that they shouldn’t be anywhere near the seat of power in a Wendy House, never mind the Houses of Parliament.
I don’t really want to keep beating Hazel Blears up about this until someone needs to prise my hands from her throat* but the fucking gall of the woman, no wonder she’s done so well in the Labour government.
*May contain traces of lie.
Anyway moving on…
Hazel Blears has been waving a cheque about for what she should’ve paid in capital gain tax from the sale one of her houses (and I use h*house* rather than *home* deliberately) in 2005, *ahem* had she been liable…
Despite maintaining that she had acted within the rules, she announced late last night – after talks with Gordon Brown – that she would pay £13,332.
Blears may have acted within the rules, but which rules did she act within?…
The Communities Secretary told parliamentary authorities that a flat she owned in Kennington, south London, was her second home. However, she told the taxman that the property was her main home – and therefore did not have to pay tax on the profits of its sale in 2005.
She told the tax man one thing and the parliament authorities another. She told the tax man it was her first home to avoid paying capital gains tax. She told the parliament authorities is was her second home so she could claim allowances for it.
The house couldn’t have been her first home and have allowance paid for it and if it had been her second home, she would’ve had to pay capital gains tax.
I do not believe that this contradiction is an accident or oversight as Hazel would’ve been submitting receipts and makes claims in connection to this house and when that is the case it is extremely, dare I say impossible, to forget the designation of the house as first or second.
Two questions:
Did Hazel Blears lie to the tax man or the parliament authorities?
How much would Hazel Blears have to repay to the parliament authorities if this house had been her first home?
Everyone pretty much accepts that MP should have expenses, but those expenses should be for stuff needed for the duties of an MP.
What the cunting fuck are these shower of shits doing claiming for swimming pools, piano tuning, stables, moat cleaning (a fucking moat, for christ sake!), chandelier hanging and home improvement by the addition of a portico.
In an example of how seriously these wankers take the system, Micheal Spicer…
submitted a detailed invoice which included “hedge cutting … helipad”, although he claimed last night that the “helipad” was a “family joke”.
What sort of cunt jokes on expenses claims? What sort organisation doesn’t question it?
And then there’s Stewart Jackson…
claimed more than £300 for work on a swimming pool, and hundreds more for work to a “summer room”. Last night he agreed to repay the money claimed for the swimming pool.
In a lengthy statement he said in his defence Jackson said :”The pool came with the house and I needed to know how to run it.
“Once I was shown that one time, there were no more claims. I take care of the pool myself. I believe this represents ‘value for money’ for the taxpayer, as required by the Green Book [the Commons rulebook on claiming expenses.
He may have needed to know how to run the pool, but why should the fucking taxpayer pay for some cunt to tell him? Is it going to make him work harder or better? It might be better value to pay someone to show Jackson how to look after the pool rather than pay for an engineer to come out whenever something needs doing, but what value is it adding to his performance as an MP? Fucking none. A swimming pool is not needed to do an MP’s job.
The expenses should be for stuff that an MP needs.
If they’ve got a home in their constituency and one in london then they shouldn’t be allowed to claim a second home allowance, as they already have a second home and would be paying the bills and stuff on it anyway
If they don’t have a second home already, they should be able to either claim, upto a certain amount, enough for say a two bed flat, either rent or mortgage interest.
If a flat is bought/rented, then a contribution, not a full reimbursement, towards furniture would be allowed. The definition of furniture being tables, chairs, a cooker, fridge, bed, curtains and that type of thing. Stuff that makes a building livable. Not vases and pictures and items that make a home homely.
There needs to be some way of closing down the loophole that enables ‘flipping’, the swapping of second home designations between homes at a drop of a hat. Maybe the definition needs to be changed to the first home being where the MPs’ spouse/partner & children (if any) are based, and for single MP’s some other definition that rules out flipping.
Food expenses either to be cut severely or to be done away with completely. £400 a month for food shopping is ridiculous. A family of 4 lives very nicely on that.
My preferred choice of solution would be for the government to buy a stock of flats and let the MPs’ use them. To keep the ‘small state’ people happy, the government could lease some from a private company (based in some tax haven, of course) under a PFI project.
Nobody can reasonably expect an MP, who because of the very nature of the job has to live in two places, not to have expenses, but when MP’s abuse the rule and expect the taxpayer to pay for stuff that is not related to the job, from cleaning out moats (a moat, FFS!) to babies nappies, then the rules need to be tightened and their receipts scrutinised even closer.
