MP's expenses - Danny Alexander

Through the Guido Fawkes blog (here) I was alerted to the fact that anyone can download details (heavily 'redacted' unfortunately) of their own MP's expenses, or indeed any other MP that you may be interested in. The link to search for your MP's expenses is here.

I've downloaded all the available .PDF files for my MP (Danny Alexander [LD] - Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey). The files go back to 2005/06 and the latest file relates to 2008/09 and to 2009/10 (the last relating to additioal accommodation claims).

As mentioned earlier the files are heavily "redacted" (it reminds me of reading British newspapers in Saudi Arabia when I lived there - even the FT was often heavily-censored if they were carrying ads for photocopiers or high-powered cars, etc and a bikini-clad girl was a part of the ad), but I have perused a few. Nothing really jumps out as being specially extravagant although why we should be paying for his Sainsbury's (Balham) grocery bill escapes me. The bill dated 26th April 2008 is not very large (it's for GBP41.33) and contains many of the items that anyone might want to buy for general home food consumption - except that we seem on the face of it to be paying in this instance for two bottles of rosé wine (perfectly ordinary bottles, to be sure, costing a mere GBP3.99 and £4.99 respectively). We also seem to be paying for 'Rachels organic kids yoghurts' at GBP1.58 - hardly a fortune of course and this may seem very petty. But why should I be paying for his kid's food?

I understand this is the last time that expenses from before the time when MPs knew they would be published are involved. It will be very instructive to compare and contrast future years' expenses, when MPs know that people with too much time on their hands can pore over their every penny of expenditure and high-light anything that seems 'unusual'.

Finally, I hasten to add that I am not intending to be specially critical of Mr Alexander as an individual; his expenses seem largely unexceptional to me in terms of the levels of his claims and I expect that someone like him has higher legitimate expenses than many urban MPs, specially those whose constituencies are in or close to London. I certainly don't begrudge him his Cox's apples on a regular basis or his satsumas in the House of Commons canteen or other eating-places in the parliamentary estate and his claims are probably no different than those of many other MPs.

A homophobic and corrupt little man (and an MP to boot) gets his comeuppence!!

Through Jae I learn that David Wilshire MP, the parliamentarian who demonstrated innovation in the methodology he used to fleece the public by passing parliamentary expenses through an entity of which he and his 'girl-friend' ('partner'/'fancy-woman'/'bidey-in'???) are the sole partners, is actually the homophobic bigot (and just look at his voting record on gay issues in the House of Commons if you feel like arguing the point!) who piloted the infamous 'Clause 28' through the House of Commons in the 1980s
Quite apart from the fact that this odious little thief is now being forced out of Parliament (who would vote for him any more?) it is pleasing that his past 'crimes' against the LGBT community are now receiving some sort of punishment, if only indirectly.

Good riddance, Wilshire!

(PS/ As one of the commenters to the last linked article has asked, I too wonder how many others of the MPs behind 'Clause 28' and other attempts to marginalise and discriminate against the LGBT community in the last 20 or so years remain in parliament? It would be interesting to have all their names listed.)

MP 'duplicity' contrasted with MOD 'pettiness'

I think two cases I came across whilst scanning my morning news reports indicate that not much has changed in Britain. I'm not, as readers will know, any kind of 'socialist', but this kind of thing does make my blood boil!

Case 1 - MP 'duplicity'
The so-called 'reform' of MP's expenses will actually allow an MP to claim almost double the level of monthly subsistence/food allowance currently permissible, without producing a receipt. Naturally, one of the members of the 'tribune of the people', Labour MP Tom Bell, is indirectly quoted in the article as:

'... denying the system could be abused, saying MPs would be expected to keep a record of nights spent away from home.'

- although according to BBC political correspondent Reeta Chakrabarti believes 'the wording of the new rules, set out in the parliamentary green book, is broad enough to enable MPs to claim the [unreceipted] subsistence allowance every day of the month if they wish.' Most likely without any form of audit. So that's all right then!

Case 2 - MOD 'pettiness'
The MOD is attempting to claw back increased compensation awards from military personnel for injuries suffered during military service, for injuries incidental to [but consequent upon] the service injury for which lower compensation was originally granted and increased upon appeal. The MOD wishes to overturn the increases granted during the appeals and claims it is trying:

"... to clarify an earlier judgment about how the armed forces compensation scheme is administered, and to protect the key principle of the scheme: the most compensation for the most seriously injured."

That's official-speak for 'not set a precendent' and 'reduce the impact of compensation pay-outs on the public purse'.

The moral of these two cases? Well, it seems that there is one rule for those whom we elect to our elective-dictatorship and another for those who risk their lives to protect that elective-dictatorship. It stinks!

MPs tawdry claim dismissed as a "genuine mistake"

Now here's a simple question. Is it a "genuine mistake" because, well because it was actually a "genuine mistake" or because it has now been exposed to the disinfectant of the sunlight of public exposure as a tawdry, mean-spirited and self-serving attempted(*) [mis-]use of public funds?

(*) Labour MP Frank Cook, MP for Stockton-on-Tees, has a claim for GBP5- in respect of a church donation rejected by the House of Commons Fees Office.

Is a firestorm about to engulf Britain's parliamentary democracy?

I speak of course of the MP expenses controversy. I've written about it only once so far, last week when the main focus of the Telegraph's revelations was on the governing Labour Party.

Last Sunday the focus shifted to the main opposition Conservative Party, although the LibDems and a few other political parties received 'honourable' mentions too. What struck me about most of the Conservative cases was their sheer pettiness - relatively small amounts in many cases (not all) with the claimant MPs in many of those cases being extremely wealthy people. Yes, it did cause a little mirth in the media when their expenses faux pas included claims for tennis court repairs or to clear something so aristocratic as a moat, but these are no more really meriting of mirth than is a claim for a very costly television or home cinema system. One of the biggest 'try-ons' I heard about just yesterday (or perhaps the day before) concerned the former 'Father of the House' Labour MP Tom Dalziel (he of the 'West Lothian Question' fame) who claimed GBP18,000 if you please(!) for bookcases to hold his copies of Hansard (so we are told), just a few weeks before he was due to step down as an MP upon his retirement; it's that last detail that astounds me. Having visited his home as a member of a bus tour a few years ago, I must say I can't think where he would have fitted these bookcases in what is a rather cramped home, albeit the home of a minor aristocrat in a very grand setting - it seems to me it was obviously just an attempt to get us to pay for the upkeep of his 'stately home', just like Hogg the moat-repair merchant! An honourable mention must also go to Andrew Mackay and Julie Kirkbride, a couple (or should that be a 'brace') of Conservative MPs who each claimed one of their two homes as a 'second home' (not the same one of course!) so they were able to claim for both their homes on MPs expenses. If that's not actual fraud, it must surely come pretty close to it as it certainly seems to me to bend the spirit of the rules beyond breaking point, if not necessarily the letter of the rules; I'm not an expert.

Anyway in the last week things have moved on rapidly - now I read (again in the valiant Telegraph) that the police are setting up a special panel to look at whether criminal prosescutions should follow; I'm sure that in a number of cases they should.

Although the 'Dear Leader' seems finally to be waking up to the seriousness of the situation (politically and socially), it is the leader of the Conservative Party who is still taking the lead - basically it is he who is behaving much more like a Prime Minister than the actual Prime Minister. It is a clear demonstration of the differences in the personal qualities of the two men.

Finally Speaker Michael Martin - now here is a man there is really no excuse for. He has to go voluntarily, or be dragged kicking and screaming out of the Speaker's chair (by tradtion Speakers-elect are dragged toward the chair).

Now I move on to more pleasurable matters - the Eurovision Song Contest will start in 20 minutes or so! Please forgive my haste ...

Expense fiddling and the little tricks MPs play

It's been most amusing reading the revelations appearing in the Telegraph these past few days about how our MPs spend our money, supposedly on 'our behalf'. MPs fought tooth and nail to keep details of their expenses secret and it wasn't until the Speaker [of the House of Commons] lost a court case that MPs realised the game was up. The details are due to be published officially in a couple of months time (safely after the European elections and when Parliament is in recess for the summer, of course) and there have been rumours for weeks that 'unredacted' (i.e. complete and 'uncensored') lists were being hawked around the press. Whatever. A few days ago the Telegraph newspaper published details of expenses claims of senior Cabinet members although it has refused to discuss how it came by the lists. Although there has been much huffing and puffing today from government ministers, there have been no allegations that any of what the Telegraph has published is not in accordance with the actualité (as the late Alan Clark might have put it), even if there have been some claims that individual expenses have been 'misinterepreted'; well, they would say that, wouldn't they? This brief video sums up very wittily what has been going on (I'll observe only that the potential accusation of anti-semitism inherent in the soundtrack used has been noted and considered worthwhile to risk in the circumstances):



I have neither the time nor the inclination [any more] to write multiple posts daily on this matter; when I first began blogging 7 years ago I probably would have done so, but there are now so many bloggers writing copiously and well on this and other matters that I am content to leave the vast bulk of this necessary chronicling of events to others and instead content myself with occasional observations on some of these matters and on a few other more quirky topics that come to my attention, but that others mainly haven't bothered with or been aware of. This time I'll content myself with including below a list of links to various of the Telegraph's articles on MP expenses over the past few days; it is clear that some of the 'revelations' are much more serious (and evidence a level of corruption much deeper) than others and that a few of the facts so far revealed would seem to suggest that for the MPs concerned their political careers should, in any sane and just world, be over. So far the main spotlight has been turned on the Labour Party, with a few Conservative MPs and Sinn Fein MPs coming under scrutiny too, but I've no doubt that the Conservatives, LibDems and others will receive their due attention in coming days, or at least I certainly hope they do.

My Telegraph list of links:
(First published: 7 May 2009)
MPs' expenses: how Brown and his Cabinet exploit expenses system
(First published: 8 May 2009)
Expenses: How MP's expenses became a hot topic
MPs' expenses: how Gordon Brown and his Cabinet exploit expenses system
MPs' expenses: Gordon Brown forced to defend allowances system
Harriet Harman forced to defend MPs' expenses
MPs' expenses: Gordon Brown cleaning contract
Charles Clarke demands immediate publication of MPs' claims
MPs' expenses: 'lack of moral leadership' revealed by politicians
Gordon Brown blames expenses row on 'the system'
MPs' expenses: Commons authorities ask police to investigate leak
Gordon Brown refuses to defend Cabinet ministers over MPs' expenses
Tony McNulty could face police investigation over MPs' expenses
Barbara Follett: Millionaire MP's £25,000 expenses on security over safety fears
MPs' expenses: Four ministers who milked the system
MPs’ expenses: MPs condemn parliamentary move to call in police over leaked expenses
Phil Hope: How did he fit all this into one tiny flat?
MPs expenses: The best of the begging letters
Immigration Minister claimed for women's clothing and panty liners
MPs’ expenses: Police consider whether to hunt source of leaks
(First published: 9 May 2009)
MPs’ expenses: Ministers have presided over 'scandals of shamelessness'
Harriet Harman: Deputy leader unable to claim second home cash
Gordon Brown: Cleaning cash for brother was legitimate
MPs’ expenses: Few checks on the honourable members
MPs expenses: Questions and answers
MPs’ expenses: 'Publication is defining moment of sorry saga'
Keith Vaz: £75,000 for a flat 12 miles from home
Vera Baird: Solicitor General tried to claim cost of Christmas tree and decorations
MPs expenses: Michael Martin's four-year battle to keep the details secret
Ben Bradshaw: Mortgage bill paid on home part-owned by boyfriend (* - see at end)
Margaret Moran: Second home 'flip' paid £22,500 dry rot bill: MPs' expenses
Barry Gardiner: £198,500 profit from a flat renovated with MPs' expenses
Alex Salmond claimed £800 for food on MPs' expenses during recess
MPs' expenses: minister Kitty Ussher used allowances for £20,000 house make-over
MPs' expenses: Sinn Fein claimed £500,000 for second homes
John Reid claimed for a pouffe and a glittery loo seat on MPs' expenses
(First published: 10 May 2009)
Iain Wright and Tom Watson lavish £100,000 on shared central London flat on MPs' expenses
Kevin Brennan had £450 for television delivered to family home on MPs' expenses
MPs' expenses: Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, condemns 'culture of abuse'

A few comments:
- note how a very early reaction was for the 'Parliamentary authorities' to call in the police to try and find the 'leaks', so outraged were they that a light had been shone on their corrupt 'shenanigans'
- quickly followed by a rather less knee-jerk reaction when some MPs realise that the public reaction is fury, mingled with derisive laughter, at their initial squeals condemning the Telegraph;
- the 'Dear leader' quickly tries to distance himself from the goings-on amongst his 'underlings'. True leadership indeed!
- the bald-faced effrontery of some of the claims and attempts to justify them stretches credulity way beyond reasonable limits;

(*) - there have been some comments in the media today that this story may reflect some kind of 'homophobic' prejudice on the part of the Telegraph; my own view is that whilst the copy-writer has given the piece a title with somewhat unpleasant overtones in this respect no doubt for pithiness and to catch the eye, the way the article is written is not in any way 'homophobic'.