Part of the reason the expenses scandal has been such a big story is that it is something that registers with just about everybody, not only because it was our money they were spending, but because the it is tangible evidence that MPs do not live in the same world as the rest of us. In our world we have expenses systems that would have rejected payments for duck house and bell towers that would have stuck to limits and not paid a penny more and wrong-doers would have been referred to the police, not some special review committee.
This post could just as easily be called "they just don't get it", or, "they think we’re all thick".
The BBC is reporting that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority which is being set up to replace the fees office is going to cost £6.6m in the year 2009/10 in set up costs, which is SIX TIMES the amount being chased for repayment after the Legg Review.
1. It is a contradiction to the notion of Parliamentary Supremacy that a QUANGO be set up to set rules and regulations to Parliament. Parliament is supreme; it writes the laws, for it is supposed to be at the top of the legislative food chain. Or, I should say USED to be supreme. It is a tacit confirmation of an adjustment to EU and Soviet style structure that a part of the Government be a regulatory QUANGO.
2. It does not and will not work. The Soviet Model was corrupt; the EU can't get its accounts signed off (and is proud of that fact).
3. It is an example of how Government does not serve people's best interests that it would set up a regulatory body at Six Times the cost of its own corruption. None of the Westminster Parties is championing the case against this; Why not?
4. It is all a load of nonsense... We are, as the settled title goes... being blinded by the complexity.
All that is and ever was needed is for the police to throw into Gaol those who have already corrupted the expenses system, as these people are guilty of theft. The fees office is not above blame here either. Not 3 MPs, 300+ of them have been asked to pay money back, many of them into costs of thousands of pounds. This would require Parliament to submit itself to police investigation, instead of asking one of their own to do the job for them. The New Rules then need to be agreed upon in and by a sovereign Parliament and the Fees Office responsible, entirely for ensuring erroneous payments are not made in future. Finally every receipt and every expense in a streamlined system are published on the internet for the whole world to see and scrutinise. Finally, MPs must pass a House Resolution that explicitly accepts that the Freedom of Information Act does not extend to matters of cost to the public purse. If constituents feel their MP is claiming too much, whether it is within the rules or not they then have the opportunity to question their MPs on this.
The cost of this is negligible, and it how things should have been done all along. MPs and Peers are the only people in this whole country that not only could have got away with stealing such vast sums, but have escaped en-masse from suffering punishment for their crimes.
Every day it seems there is something in the news that cost us £X millions or £X billions and people are getting dazed by it - we never vote for these things they just keeping getting paid for out of our money. None of the major parties in Westminster is standing up to this, there is a consensus on so many of these things, we only ever find out what we have paid for, we are never asked what we want to pay for.
No More. We absolutely as a people need to take back control from Government and start dictating to them what we want and when. And it starts with this election campaign. God help any candidate that knocks on my door because I am likely to tear them a new one. There is no complexity to honesty, it is the most straight forward thing in the world - it is in dishonesty that we need layers that must first be peeled away before truth is revealled.
Of course, on the day of this announcement MPs have adjourned for a two week break and will not be around Westminster to answer questions. Have they really nothing to work on that a two week break in February can be accommodated?
MPs wonder why people hold them in contempt; they should take a good long look in the mirror.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Recommended Reading
Here is my latest recommended reading list.
Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:
Witterings From Witney thinks that Con Home's description of candidates as Euro Sceptic is wrong considering only 5% favour a withdrawal from the EU.
The All Seeing Eye disagrees with the notion that all illegal immigrants already in the UK should be allowed to stay.
Susan Hill says that Oxfam is a bully.
New Right thinks that President Van Rompuy has proved his mettle.
And finally, James Higham has an interesting and informative post about the power behind the power, and kindly requests that you do not shoot the messenger.
Enjoy!
Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:
Witterings From Witney thinks that Con Home's description of candidates as Euro Sceptic is wrong considering only 5% favour a withdrawal from the EU.
The All Seeing Eye disagrees with the notion that all illegal immigrants already in the UK should be allowed to stay.
Susan Hill says that Oxfam is a bully.
New Right thinks that President Van Rompuy has proved his mettle.
And finally, James Higham has an interesting and informative post about the power behind the power, and kindly requests that you do not shoot the messenger.
Enjoy!
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Fisking Cameron
I am picking up on David Cameron's interview to the Express. My extracts are from ConHome.
Council Tax is repressive and hits the poor very hard. I am by no means well off, and after I have paid Income Tax and rent I loathe paying Council Tax. A two-year freeze would be welcomed by me and I suspect widely elsewhere. But you acknowledge we have been "bled dry" so in these two years, and perhaps in parallel with your pledge to redraw electoral boundaries I would like to see a review of councils, boundaries, responsibilities and funding. There is massive scope for change and reform and massive scope for cuts. Get rid of these regional assemblies and look if the responsibilities of district councils could be absorbed into county councils, devolved assemblies and/or to Westminster. I have no problem with the notion of a change in the Inheritance Tax threshold, which seems to me to be too low. It would be cheaper to administer if many fewer estates qualified. However, I think there are other areas where tax could be cut first that would be more beneficial to the economy, and that would register positively with a wider audience. I am not sure what you are proposing for the elderly so I will refrain from comment on that part.
A referendum on EU membership suits all sides, because it really will bring things into the open and will allow those in favour to make a stated case too. The bottom line is, the other EU nations do not want a half committed UK, and that is as far as you will keep us in. Do the right thing and call a vote when you are in power. Put it in your manifesto, and that poll rating would break 50%.
On the Tories poll ratings... "Inevitably as you come into an election campaign it’s going to be tough and you have a fight on your hands. For years the Conservative Party was stuck on 32%. As of this morning we’re on 40%."Fair enough 40% is better that 32%. However, if you don't win the election then 40% really won't mean much come mid-May. My point is, between here and the Election it is the win that counts now. Undoubtedly you can't win without the centre ground, but you are losing some Conservative core voters, and lately the Tory message has become disjoined. Sort it out, because there are 70% that absolutely don't want any more of Gordon Brown and Labour. Please spare a thought for where your support will come from when you're in government and exercising tight fiscal reforms and the Liberals and Labour are making unfunded promises and screaming about Tory Cuts and winning back some of those floating votes.
Council Tax, Inheritance Tax and Elderly Care... "We will freeze council tax for two years. The council tax has bled British families dry. It has doubled in most places, no one feels their services are twice as good. Then there is inheritance tax. People do feel that £325,000, the current threshold is too low. The fact is there are two million homes in the country valued above that level and we will take away the threat of inheritance tax for all middle income families, people who have worked hard and put money aside and built up a nice house they want to pass on to their children. On elderly care, if you put aside £8,000, no one will have to sell their home to pay for long-term care."
Council Tax is repressive and hits the poor very hard. I am by no means well off, and after I have paid Income Tax and rent I loathe paying Council Tax. A two-year freeze would be welcomed by me and I suspect widely elsewhere. But you acknowledge we have been "bled dry" so in these two years, and perhaps in parallel with your pledge to redraw electoral boundaries I would like to see a review of councils, boundaries, responsibilities and funding. There is massive scope for change and reform and massive scope for cuts. Get rid of these regional assemblies and look if the responsibilities of district councils could be absorbed into county councils, devolved assemblies and/or to Westminster. I have no problem with the notion of a change in the Inheritance Tax threshold, which seems to me to be too low. It would be cheaper to administer if many fewer estates qualified. However, I think there are other areas where tax could be cut first that would be more beneficial to the economy, and that would register positively with a wider audience. I am not sure what you are proposing for the elderly so I will refrain from comment on that part.
On 50p Rate of Income Tax... " I suspect it will raise a little bit of money, although less than people forecast. We can’t make an early pledge to get rid of it but we don’t think it’s a sensible move. Look at the evidence of the 1980s. I want the rich to pay more taxes. The way we got the rich to pay more taxes is we cut the top rate of tax. The remarkable thing about the move to 40% was that it didn’t just mean the rich paid more in income tax, they actually paid a larger percentage of the total income tax take."I have a pretty good record of reading between the lines on your announcements; unfortunately this skill has left me predictably disappointed in some areas. My guess here is that you are saying that you understand the laffer curve economics but there will be cuts in the public sector, and quickly. To offset the furore and to placate the Unions you will keep the 50p rate and point to it as proof that everybody sharing the burden of recovery. This would be a political move, and despite the economic reality of such a high band of tax, the politics are smart if it is a tempoary position; though not guaranteed to succeed. I hope I am correct in my suspicion that you will after two or so years then adjust the top rate again, and when you do, I hope you and the Chancellor look at raising the threshold, or lowering the rate below 40p, which may have been attractive in the 1980's, but no longer is. For the record, I am not personally in the band, I am not close to it, nor do I suspect I would be in the next Parliament.
On the EURO... "I was in the Treasury when we were in the Exchange Rate mechanism, and I said to myself: “Never again should we give up control of our domestic interest rates.” If I am Prime Minister and for as long as I would be Prime Minister, I would never take Britain into the euro, full stop, end of story. We should never have got ourselves into the financial mess that we are in but at least we have the flexibility of our own currency and our own interest rates."That's great... But what about when you are not Prime Minister any more? It is not about you as an individual; it is about the other 59,999,999 of us (and rising, fast). The death of the last Tory Government left us proles powerless in the face of swooping EU controls, and some close to you supported that. There is only one way to get the EU issue resolved, and that is a referendum on continued membership. EU Sceptics en-masse do not beleive you can implement your stated and recently revised policy on the EU. But, then again most EU Sceptics see that position as one that is not compatible in the post Lisbon scenario with the basic traditions of free thinking conservatism. The Lisbon Treaty is clear, the currency of the EU is the EURO, there will come the day when it is forced on us. It may not be on your watch, but if you leave the soil fertile for it, you will be blamed too (me, writing future history here.)
A referendum on EU membership suits all sides, because it really will bring things into the open and will allow those in favour to make a stated case too. The bottom line is, the other EU nations do not want a half committed UK, and that is as far as you will keep us in. Do the right thing and call a vote when you are in power. Put it in your manifesto, and that poll rating would break 50%.
The Boiling Frog Is....
Running for Parliament!
It is nice to see the circle coming complete, with politicians having crossed over into blogging and now a number of bloggers running for Parliament. I have had the opportunity to meet the Boiling Frog a few times at blogger get-togethers, and from having had conversations with him as well of course from having read his fine blog I have no doubt that he would be an excellent MP.
It is nice to see the circle coming complete, with politicians having crossed over into blogging and now a number of bloggers running for Parliament. I have had the opportunity to meet the Boiling Frog a few times at blogger get-togethers, and from having had conversations with him as well of course from having read his fine blog I have no doubt that he would be an excellent MP.
The Case For A Referendum
From Jack Straw last night, on why he is proposing a referendum on the Alternative Voting System. From Hansard:
Like wise to Chris Huhne on the Daily Politics yesterday regarding the Liberal Democrats position on AV and a referendum:
The Liberal Democrats will have their convictions tested this month when Doug Carswells Bill requiring a referendum on EU Membership reaches the floor and they get the opportunity to vote exactly for what they said was necessary just two years ago. But, of course being the Lib Dems, we won't know which way they will vote until we know which way the wind will be blowing on that particular day.
We propose a referendum, however, because we believe that it is not for us to make the final decision. It is important that the people should have that choice in a referendum. If the Conservative Opposition feel so strongly about the merits of first past the post, why do they not have the courage of their convictions? They should back the proposals and allow the people in their constituencies, as well as those in every other constituency across the country, to make that choice-a mature and balanced choice-after detailed debate some time before October 2011. That is what we propose and that is what I believe should be supported. I commend the new clauses to the House.Right back at you Jackie. Where was the courage of Labours convictions in manifestly promising a vote on the Lisbon Treaty and then withdrawing that referendum pledge when your political masters in Brussels deemed it essential to do so? Labour did not obviously feel they could make the case for Lisbon, nor for EU membership being beneficial to the UK. How stupid the electorate was indeed, for voting Labour who have no intention of following their own manifesto.
Like wise to Chris Huhne on the Daily Politics yesterday regarding the Liberal Democrats position on AV and a referendum:
We have said we think AV is a very small; a most minimal step in the right direction because it it gives voters more choice and less waste of vote... Yes, we will back it.So, the Liberal Democrats under the newly elected Nick Clegg could not support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty despite a maifesto comittment, because it did not ask the question they wanted, that of overall EU Membership. However, they can back a referendum on AV that does not answer what they would claim to be the problem and is nothing more than a small, minimal step.
The Liberal Democrats will have their convictions tested this month when Doug Carswells Bill requiring a referendum on EU Membership reaches the floor and they get the opportunity to vote exactly for what they said was necessary just two years ago. But, of course being the Lib Dems, we won't know which way they will vote until we know which way the wind will be blowing on that particular day.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Governmentitus
The momentum to the General Election is beginning to build, and the public debate is about to ramp up. My blogging reach is limited, but I want to open up my blog to others and if I and this platform can help fight the good fight then I want it to happen.
So, I just want to declare that if other bloggers have posts that they want cross-posted then send them onto me and between now and the General Election I will be happy to do so. Furthermore, and I am not sure if there is or not, but if there are any current bloggers, or former bloggers itching to have a say once again, who want to post directly here, I am open to the idea of adding some contributors - be it frequent, ocassional or very occassional. It certainly works well elsewhere.
I want Labour out of Government, and I want to get the UK out of the EU, and so long as this blog remains focused on achieving those ends I think some extra posts from different points of view (or furthering my general point of view) would be positive. Though please note, this is not a sweary blog, I guess that would be about the only condition.
Send me posts, or url, or html in .doc to daniel1979blog@gmail.com
So, I just want to declare that if other bloggers have posts that they want cross-posted then send them onto me and between now and the General Election I will be happy to do so. Furthermore, and I am not sure if there is or not, but if there are any current bloggers, or former bloggers itching to have a say once again, who want to post directly here, I am open to the idea of adding some contributors - be it frequent, ocassional or very occassional. It certainly works well elsewhere.
I want Labour out of Government, and I want to get the UK out of the EU, and so long as this blog remains focused on achieving those ends I think some extra posts from different points of view (or furthering my general point of view) would be positive. Though please note, this is not a sweary blog, I guess that would be about the only condition.
Send me posts, or url, or html in .doc to daniel1979blog@gmail.com
Legg's Rebels - Former MPs
This is part four of four, and becasue I am lazy here are the names only this time, but I include the page reference if anyone wants to go look up the details from the Legg Report.
Former MPs
Irene Adams – P. 154
Ivor Caplin P. 156
Roger Casale – P. 157
Helen Clark – P. 157
Lorna Fitzsimons – P. 160
Adrian Flook – P. 160
Ian Gibson – P. 161
Ivan Henderson – P. 162
David Jamieson – P. 163
Owen Jones – P. 165
John Lyons – P. 165
Diana Organ – P. 167
Richard Page – P. 168
David Stewart – P. 171
John Mark Taylor – P. 172
Former MPs
Irene Adams – P. 154
Ivor Caplin P. 156
Roger Casale – P. 157
Helen Clark – P. 157
Lorna Fitzsimons – P. 160
Adrian Flook – P. 160
Ian Gibson – P. 161
Ivan Henderson – P. 162
David Jamieson – P. 163
Owen Jones – P. 165
John Lyons – P. 165
Diana Organ – P. 167
Richard Page – P. 168
David Stewart – P. 171
John Mark Taylor – P. 172
Latest Nigel Farage Video
I will hat tip Captain Ranty, who also offers the interesting suggestion that we should clone Nigel Farage.
I can see the placards now.
Albion Alliance Blogroll
You may have already noticed, I have added an Albion Alliance blogroll to my right sidebar. This is to list those blogs displaying the Albion Alliance badge on their main page both as advertising and for a prominent link back to the Albion Alliance homepage.
I hope I got everyone, but if not let me know in the comments and if you have the badge, and you support the Alliance I will add you to the blogroll.
The Albion Alliance.... it's the future!
I hope I got everyone, but if not let me know in the comments and if you have the badge, and you support the Alliance I will add you to the blogroll.
The Albion Alliance.... it's the future!
Recommended Reading
Here is my latest recommended reading list.
Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:
Ian Parker-Joseph outlines why Britain is at a crossroad.
Fausty has an excellent example of active socialism in the classroom.
SNP Tactical Voting says that Harriet Harman abandons all women shortlists... when it benefits her husband.
Tory Totty Online says that traitor Brown is to sell the Port of Dover to the French!
And finally, Spidey has a public safety video - what to do in the event of an imminent encounter with Gordon Brown.
Enjoy!
Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:
Ian Parker-Joseph outlines why Britain is at a crossroad.
Fausty has an excellent example of active socialism in the classroom.
SNP Tactical Voting says that Harriet Harman abandons all women shortlists... when it benefits her husband.
Tory Totty Online says that traitor Brown is to sell the Port of Dover to the French!
And finally, Spidey has a public safety video - what to do in the event of an imminent encounter with Gordon Brown.
Enjoy!
Monday, February 08, 2010
Guido Calls For EU Army Formation
No, not that one.
From the Irish Times:
H/T: Team Europe
From the Irish Times:
German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle has called for the EU to proceed with plans for a European army under the Lisbon Treaty, which he dubbed “the beginning and not the end” of a common security and defence policy.
His remarks at the annual Munich Security Conference followed a call by Berlin’s defense minister Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg to end what he called Nato’s “absurd” practice of unanimous decision-making.
“The (Lisbon) treaty lays out a common security and defence policy. The federal government wants to make progress on this front,” said Mr Westerwelle. “The long-term goal is to build up a European army under parliamentary control. The EU has to live up to political expectations of its role as a global player.” The foreign minister sketched out a role for such an army as crisis management in a time of resource scarcity, to be developed by willing member states over time as a “motor for closer co-operation” in the EU. In a nod to Nato, Mr Westerwelle said such EU structures would not replace other military structures.
Germany’s top diplomat received backing for his plan from his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, who called for a “single European military-political space” in which no one country’s security was sacrificed for another.
“We want to overcome the bloc-thinking of the Cold War in Europe and create a new kind of mutual trust,” said Mr Lavrov
H/T: Team Europe
FFS
I don't like to repeat myself too often, but this time I am going to.
Can someone please explain to me how Gordon Brown can claim to be leading the way with the expenses saga with Labour MPs when HIS CHIEF WHIP IS A REBEL! How can any Labour MP be cajoled into going along with Sir Thomas Legg's recommendations when the very man he needs to go and make this happen has not paid back his own infringements!
If Brown is unaware, it is proof that he is completely out of touch; if he is aware, it proves he is a hypocrite. If he knows and can do nothing, it proves how weak he really is.
Hardly leading the way is he?
Add to this the revelations that Labour's three MPs heading for the dock are being represented by Labour Party Solicitors - Yet more proof, where none was needed that Brown is completely out of touch with the public, has no control over his own party and is happy to take one line in public, and follow a different line when he thinks no one is looking.
Brown tried to prevent the release of MPs expenses, then he tried to redact them, then he has cynically used the public furore as reasoning to see out the full length of this Parliament, and then has failed, completely to reform the MPs expenses system, or to improve trust from the public.
Bring on the election!
Can someone please explain to me how Gordon Brown can claim to be leading the way with the expenses saga with Labour MPs when HIS CHIEF WHIP IS A REBEL! How can any Labour MP be cajoled into going along with Sir Thomas Legg's recommendations when the very man he needs to go and make this happen has not paid back his own infringements!
If Brown is unaware, it is proof that he is completely out of touch; if he is aware, it proves he is a hypocrite. If he knows and can do nothing, it proves how weak he really is.
Hardly leading the way is he?
Add to this the revelations that Labour's three MPs heading for the dock are being represented by Labour Party Solicitors - Yet more proof, where none was needed that Brown is completely out of touch with the public, has no control over his own party and is happy to take one line in public, and follow a different line when he thinks no one is looking.
Brown tried to prevent the release of MPs expenses, then he tried to redact them, then he has cynically used the public furore as reasoning to see out the full length of this Parliament, and then has failed, completely to reform the MPs expenses system, or to improve trust from the public.
Bring on the election!
Constitutional Reform
Constitutional reform we need:
All of the above would help towards securing a return of Parliamentary supremacy.
What we don’t need.
- A referendum on EU membership
- The wide spread introduction of Caucuses and Open Primaries so that constituents can vote for the Person and the Party of their choice
- The introduction of the Right to Recall MPs
- An immediate review of the electoral boundaries and sizes so that constituency sizes are made more equal.
- An elected Second Chamber
- A reduction in the power of the whips
- A transparent, workable expenses system
- An answer to the West Lothian question
- A Minister answerable to the House of Commons for every single department and QUANGO
Constitutional reform that would be useful / welcomed:
- Fewer MP’s
- Parliamentary terms lowered to a maximum of four years
- Annual referendums to consult directly on certain issues
- The ability to petition Parliament when a public petition canvases sufficient signatures
All of the above would help towards securing a return of Parliamentary supremacy.
What we don’t need.
- A vote on changing the voting system just as Labour are about to head into oblivion
Reform Referendum
Gordon Browns attempts to usurp the First Past The Post System will hit the House of Commons tomorrow; I have already had my say about that.
What I hope is mentioned, frequently during the proposed debate is to remind the Labour and Liberal Democratic Parties that they have already reneged on their Manifesto Referendum Pledge's once in this Parliament, so it is a bit rich of them to be proposing a different referendum now.
Then, it would be worth reminding the House, and the Liberal Democrats in particular that upon their rejection of the referendum on Lisbon, they cried to all and sundry that what we should have is a referendum on our overall membership of the EU.
Well, lo and behold we have just such a Bill coming before the House this month. Perhaps Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats might like to repeat that pledge and declare their support for Douglas Carswells Bill now, and we can hold a referendum on leaving the EU on the same day we vote to keep First Past The Post. My guess is that yet again the Liberal Democrats are about to be shown up for being the opportunistic political waste of spaces that they are.
What I hope is mentioned, frequently during the proposed debate is to remind the Labour and Liberal Democratic Parties that they have already reneged on their Manifesto Referendum Pledge's once in this Parliament, so it is a bit rich of them to be proposing a different referendum now.
Then, it would be worth reminding the House, and the Liberal Democrats in particular that upon their rejection of the referendum on Lisbon, they cried to all and sundry that what we should have is a referendum on our overall membership of the EU.
Well, lo and behold we have just such a Bill coming before the House this month. Perhaps Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats might like to repeat that pledge and declare their support for Douglas Carswells Bill now, and we can hold a referendum on leaving the EU on the same day we vote to keep First Past The Post. My guess is that yet again the Liberal Democrats are about to be shown up for being the opportunistic political waste of spaces that they are.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
IPCC - More Gates Than Wickes
Dr North takes the lead again in the fight back against the IPCC, with another revelation about the 2007 IPCC report which bogusly claimed that the Himalayan Glaciers would have melted in the next 25 years. That revelation showed that this was an entirely false claim and has rippled around the world and is what we know as Glaciergate.
Dr North now says that the very same report was again wrong with claims that food yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020. The 2020 projection is in fact now exposed as based on nothing more than speculation that is sourced back to a Canadian advocacy group, and written by an obscure academic who specialises in Carbon Trading and citing references that do not support his claims.
Time and again, we must examine why such claims are plucked out of the air and then offered with a thin veneer of polish dressed up as scientific fact that we must all be afraid of. There have been moves to introduce global trading and taxing of a Carbon economy. Such an economy already exists, it is founded almost exclusively by people who believe wholeheartedly in the notion that the world is dying because of humans and our CO2 productions. Such CO2 levels they say are unsustainable and they are putting their money where their mouths are. Fair enough, up to the point that the science backs the arguments. This is the problem, time and time again, it is being revealed that the scientific facts do not back up their claims, and time and time again evidence is being shown to have been filtered and moulded to fit a certain line of thinking; then a small questionable fact is then presented to the World as evidence of an impending doom.
The Carbon Economy and its readiness to become the largest economic and political movement across the globe means that the Climate Change argument is no longer about asking people to be well intentioned and play it safe just in case. It is now linked to billions of dollars and has the political backing of some of the world’s most powerful people. It is absolutely right that assertions be questioned. This Carbon Economy cannot succeed if the people of the world are notmotivated scared into making changes that mean we become consumers to their new markets, and that existing corporations through the necessity of following their consumers move too. Many in fact are financially invested in the inevitability of this future.
So, when we are being scared into thinking in a new way, we must ask two questions. Is this true and why is this claim made. Many of the claims are now being disproven or shown to be based upon unreliable and questionable data. Some, like Africagate, are rooted in the claims of those who stand to profit from Carbon Trading. The ‘why’ keeps leading back in the same direction each time these claims are exposed. They all tie back through scientific bodies to the architects of a global economy. We absolutely must question whether altruism or profit is the true motive here.
The Climategate emails showed that those few individuals who are centre to the research are routinely avoiding Scientific Method, they are refusing to share raw data, and present only adjusted data that they have manipulated. There is, in fact a conspiracy, real and documented to do all that they can to refute the approaches of those who wish to question and review their data. After hundreds of years of human scientific advancement, an approach as such is entirely suspicious. Validation of scientific claims is completely incestuous, and the must vaunted “peer-review” is all about growing climate science by sharing only within the family of believers. Anyone who showed dissent was shunned from this family, grants pulled and smear began. This has never been an open and pure journey towards true scientific discovery; it is about certain scientist purporting a type of science that fits with their political and often financial motivations.
Until we can all reproduce the claims, until it can be shown in everyday labs and tested by multitude of models. Until we can show completely how and why such things are happening, or even prove conclusively that they are indeed happening there is not a Scientific Consensus. So, I would question the motives of those who claim there is one, despite their obviously not being one.
Why then are the media so quick to take the Climate Camp side all of the time? Well again, let’s follow the money. The BBC is the biggest and most influential media source in the UK thanks to their unique tax funding though the Licence fee. Their eco-bias is today subject to a piece in the Sunday Express where they draw parallels between the BBC’s pension pot and their coverage of Climate Change. The article starts by stating that the Beeb is under investigation and is inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. At present for every £142.50 licence fee that is collected in the UK each year, about £8 (and rising) goes to the Corporations Pension Pot which has 58,744 members and it is valued at about £8billion. The BBC’s Pension Fund is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change. So, 58,744 current and former employees of the BBC have their personal financial security linked to the emergence of a Carbon Economy… That places the Corporation very squarely in the camp that wants to see a global Carbon Market, it has linked itself to that market in a very hefty financial way. Why has the BBC placed all its eggs in such a precarious basket? Well, for that you should ask Peter Dunscombe who is the BBC Head of Pension Investment… oh, and Chairman of the very same Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change.
An editorial line thus follows that the Scientific Consensus is that the Science of Climate change is settled. But repeatedly we find out, not through disclosure but through investigation and leaks that the Science is really anything but settled. Peter Dunscombes Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change campaigned vigorously for a strong and binding global agreement on Climate Change at Copenhagen, which was the very same editorial line carried out by the BBC. The BBC despite its copy and paste responses to public letters of concern cannot be believed when so incredibly beholden to the need for Climate Change Governance. They can reply all they like, they aren’t impartial or balanced. They have one hand in your pocket, and the other in Al Gores.
A very quick check of their current members is revealing, and not entirely secular. I would argue, nobody listed could hold an impartial position in a Climate Change debate.
Flip back to the Express story, and it is clear that not everyone at the BBC is happy about this situation. They quote veteran newsreader Peter Sissons as being unhappy with the Corporations coverage:
The Public however are not being taken in any longer, and despite the BBC’s blackout towards the sceptics, these arguments are making their way into the public debate. The man in the pub HAS taken note of it, those of us who visit our rapidly disappearing Public Houses know this, we are hearing it more and more. This is almost entirely thanks to the Internet and bloggers which were the only outlets who dared voice their opinion openly and as there were very few in the MSM who were brave enough to give such an opinion, but this has then led to a wider audience and has attracted the Express group and some of the Blogs of MSM press, if not the paper copies. Nonetheless, the arguments are there and more and more people are questioning this false and manufactured scientific consensus. There is a reluctance to allow sceptical argument to seep into the mainstream; but it is getting there. At the end of the day, why make such an effort to suppress people’s opinions? It can only be that the modern media is now more geared to shaping opinions than it is to reflecting them.
Public perception must be turning because even a poll commissioned by the BBC confirms this.
The Populus poll of 1,001 people mirrors a Populus poll commissioned by The Times in November and has turned up some interesting results, and an interesting shift in perceptions in just two months. Most notably the number of people who would sit in the sceptic camp now outweighs those who sit in the believer’s camp with only 26% of people now believing that Climate Change is happening and that it is manmade, down from 41% in November 2009.
It would be as ridiculous of me to claim that this will now lead to a complete reversal in public opinion, as comparatively ridiculous are the claims that the Science of Climate Change is settled. But there is another point I want to Labour (excuse the pun).
When the IPCC Scientist said that the Himalayan Glaciers would melt, that Polar Bears are drowning and that Africa is going to starve the answers they presented to these supposed issues are and were always that same. More Government, more taxes, more regulation. Not just more regional, National and supra-national government and regulation; but global regulation, and a global tax. These people always insist the cure to all our ailments is more socialism, more interference and they get it by ramping out more and more guilt to keep us in our place. It has worked time and time again, not just with Climate Change, but with a number of arguments.
If I was in a car show room and the salesman pitched a new car as the answer to all my woes, or if a double glazing salesman pitched new windows as the elixir to all my pains, you would like me suspect that I was being sold what was in stock to be sold by the person doing the selling, undoubtedly with commission to themselves. Those in government wanting more government are doing just the same, and because they succeed so often at it, a number of Global Companies are setting themselves up to operate in such an environment. Let’s just keep everybody’s motives in mind when discussing such matters, because like always this is what paints a truer picture. With Africagate, why were the very nations that were said to be in such danger by the IPCC being cajoled at Copenhagen into an expensive global regulating treaty, when the chief problem in building their agriculture is in fact another form of regulation; that of the criminally illiberal EU Common Agricultural Policy?
The answer is to keep all of the arguments going and keep all sides of the argument in the public domain so that people can make their own minds up, rather than being prescribed their opinion... Then, through true democratic discourse, allow those fairly accrued opinions influence their ballot decisions. If the debate cannot be impartial, and clearly it cannot be then it needs to be balanced with all sides and views heard. The Science, if there is any, needs to be tested by sceptics for that is how true scientific progress and consequently humanitarian progress can be achieved.
Climategate, Glaciergate, Africagate... hardly proving to be a balanced debate so far, is it.
Dr North now says that the very same report was again wrong with claims that food yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020. The 2020 projection is in fact now exposed as based on nothing more than speculation that is sourced back to a Canadian advocacy group, and written by an obscure academic who specialises in Carbon Trading and citing references that do not support his claims.
Time and again, we must examine why such claims are plucked out of the air and then offered with a thin veneer of polish dressed up as scientific fact that we must all be afraid of. There have been moves to introduce global trading and taxing of a Carbon economy. Such an economy already exists, it is founded almost exclusively by people who believe wholeheartedly in the notion that the world is dying because of humans and our CO2 productions. Such CO2 levels they say are unsustainable and they are putting their money where their mouths are. Fair enough, up to the point that the science backs the arguments. This is the problem, time and time again, it is being revealed that the scientific facts do not back up their claims, and time and time again evidence is being shown to have been filtered and moulded to fit a certain line of thinking; then a small questionable fact is then presented to the World as evidence of an impending doom.
The Carbon Economy and its readiness to become the largest economic and political movement across the globe means that the Climate Change argument is no longer about asking people to be well intentioned and play it safe just in case. It is now linked to billions of dollars and has the political backing of some of the world’s most powerful people. It is absolutely right that assertions be questioned. This Carbon Economy cannot succeed if the people of the world are not
So, when we are being scared into thinking in a new way, we must ask two questions. Is this true and why is this claim made. Many of the claims are now being disproven or shown to be based upon unreliable and questionable data. Some, like Africagate, are rooted in the claims of those who stand to profit from Carbon Trading. The ‘why’ keeps leading back in the same direction each time these claims are exposed. They all tie back through scientific bodies to the architects of a global economy. We absolutely must question whether altruism or profit is the true motive here.
The Climategate emails showed that those few individuals who are centre to the research are routinely avoiding Scientific Method, they are refusing to share raw data, and present only adjusted data that they have manipulated. There is, in fact a conspiracy, real and documented to do all that they can to refute the approaches of those who wish to question and review their data. After hundreds of years of human scientific advancement, an approach as such is entirely suspicious. Validation of scientific claims is completely incestuous, and the must vaunted “peer-review” is all about growing climate science by sharing only within the family of believers. Anyone who showed dissent was shunned from this family, grants pulled and smear began. This has never been an open and pure journey towards true scientific discovery; it is about certain scientist purporting a type of science that fits with their political and often financial motivations.
Until we can all reproduce the claims, until it can be shown in everyday labs and tested by multitude of models. Until we can show completely how and why such things are happening, or even prove conclusively that they are indeed happening there is not a Scientific Consensus. So, I would question the motives of those who claim there is one, despite their obviously not being one.
Why then are the media so quick to take the Climate Camp side all of the time? Well again, let’s follow the money. The BBC is the biggest and most influential media source in the UK thanks to their unique tax funding though the Licence fee. Their eco-bias is today subject to a piece in the Sunday Express where they draw parallels between the BBC’s pension pot and their coverage of Climate Change. The article starts by stating that the Beeb is under investigation and is inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. At present for every £142.50 licence fee that is collected in the UK each year, about £8 (and rising) goes to the Corporations Pension Pot which has 58,744 members and it is valued at about £8billion. The BBC’s Pension Fund is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change. So, 58,744 current and former employees of the BBC have their personal financial security linked to the emergence of a Carbon Economy… That places the Corporation very squarely in the camp that wants to see a global Carbon Market, it has linked itself to that market in a very hefty financial way. Why has the BBC placed all its eggs in such a precarious basket? Well, for that you should ask Peter Dunscombe who is the BBC Head of Pension Investment… oh, and Chairman of the very same Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change.
An editorial line thus follows that the Scientific Consensus is that the Science of Climate change is settled. But repeatedly we find out, not through disclosure but through investigation and leaks that the Science is really anything but settled. Peter Dunscombes Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change campaigned vigorously for a strong and binding global agreement on Climate Change at Copenhagen, which was the very same editorial line carried out by the BBC. The BBC despite its copy and paste responses to public letters of concern cannot be believed when so incredibly beholden to the need for Climate Change Governance. They can reply all they like, they aren’t impartial or balanced. They have one hand in your pocket, and the other in Al Gores.
A very quick check of their current members is revealing, and not entirely secular. I would argue, nobody listed could hold an impartial position in a Climate Change debate.
Flip back to the Express story, and it is clear that not everyone at the BBC is happy about this situation. They quote veteran newsreader Peter Sissons as being unhappy with the Corporations coverage:
“The corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that ‘the science is settled’ when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t. It is, in effect, BBC policy, enthusiastically carried out by the BBC’s environment correspondents, that those views should not be heard.So, will the BBC now change its editorial line? No, it will not. Why, because even if it was conclusively proven that CO2 was not linked to man-made climate change their pensions and financial security is on the line. The Climate Change argument allowed them to push their viewers towards a lifestyle they largely believe is better, but it is rooted in a fictional belief. Contrast the money invested globally in efforts to prove the CO2 link to Climate Change and that invested to disprove it, and the BBC has years worth of stories to follow Scientist’s efforts to look in a single direction, and to push for a change in lifestyle that they approve of.
“I was not proud to be working for an organisation with a corporate mind so closed on such an important issue.”
The Public however are not being taken in any longer, and despite the BBC’s blackout towards the sceptics, these arguments are making their way into the public debate. The man in the pub HAS taken note of it, those of us who visit our rapidly disappearing Public Houses know this, we are hearing it more and more. This is almost entirely thanks to the Internet and bloggers which were the only outlets who dared voice their opinion openly and as there were very few in the MSM who were brave enough to give such an opinion, but this has then led to a wider audience and has attracted the Express group and some of the Blogs of MSM press, if not the paper copies. Nonetheless, the arguments are there and more and more people are questioning this false and manufactured scientific consensus. There is a reluctance to allow sceptical argument to seep into the mainstream; but it is getting there. At the end of the day, why make such an effort to suppress people’s opinions? It can only be that the modern media is now more geared to shaping opinions than it is to reflecting them.
Public perception must be turning because even a poll commissioned by the BBC confirms this.
The Populus poll of 1,001 people mirrors a Populus poll commissioned by The Times in November and has turned up some interesting results, and an interesting shift in perceptions in just two months. Most notably the number of people who would sit in the sceptic camp now outweighs those who sit in the believer’s camp with only 26% of people now believing that Climate Change is happening and that it is manmade, down from 41% in November 2009.
It would be as ridiculous of me to claim that this will now lead to a complete reversal in public opinion, as comparatively ridiculous are the claims that the Science of Climate Change is settled. But there is another point I want to Labour (excuse the pun).
When the IPCC Scientist said that the Himalayan Glaciers would melt, that Polar Bears are drowning and that Africa is going to starve the answers they presented to these supposed issues are and were always that same. More Government, more taxes, more regulation. Not just more regional, National and supra-national government and regulation; but global regulation, and a global tax. These people always insist the cure to all our ailments is more socialism, more interference and they get it by ramping out more and more guilt to keep us in our place. It has worked time and time again, not just with Climate Change, but with a number of arguments.
If I was in a car show room and the salesman pitched a new car as the answer to all my woes, or if a double glazing salesman pitched new windows as the elixir to all my pains, you would like me suspect that I was being sold what was in stock to be sold by the person doing the selling, undoubtedly with commission to themselves. Those in government wanting more government are doing just the same, and because they succeed so often at it, a number of Global Companies are setting themselves up to operate in such an environment. Let’s just keep everybody’s motives in mind when discussing such matters, because like always this is what paints a truer picture. With Africagate, why were the very nations that were said to be in such danger by the IPCC being cajoled at Copenhagen into an expensive global regulating treaty, when the chief problem in building their agriculture is in fact another form of regulation; that of the criminally illiberal EU Common Agricultural Policy?
The answer is to keep all of the arguments going and keep all sides of the argument in the public domain so that people can make their own minds up, rather than being prescribed their opinion... Then, through true democratic discourse, allow those fairly accrued opinions influence their ballot decisions. If the debate cannot be impartial, and clearly it cannot be then it needs to be balanced with all sides and views heard. The Science, if there is any, needs to be tested by sceptics for that is how true scientific progress and consequently humanitarian progress can be achieved.
Climategate, Glaciergate, Africagate... hardly proving to be a balanced debate so far, is it.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Recommended Reading
Here is my latest recommended reading list.
Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:
Fraser Nelson says it is hard to see what is Tory about the Tories.
John Redwood says the next election is a choice between Labour and the Conservatives, and gives some reasons why people should vote for the Tories.
Jonathan Calder wonders if Libertarian bloggers will ever grow up?
Brits at their Best have reproduced a letter from Iris Binstead.
And finally, Steve Green says that a BBC poll reveals that the Climate Change Sceptics are now in the majority.
Enjoy!
Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:
Fraser Nelson says it is hard to see what is Tory about the Tories.
John Redwood says the next election is a choice between Labour and the Conservatives, and gives some reasons why people should vote for the Tories.
Jonathan Calder wonders if Libertarian bloggers will ever grow up?
Brits at their Best have reproduced a letter from Iris Binstead.
And finally, Steve Green says that a BBC poll reveals that the Climate Change Sceptics are now in the majority.
Enjoy!
Friday, February 05, 2010
Legg's Rebels - S - Z
This is part three of four setting out who the MP's are who have yet to repay to the public purse the amounts recommended by the review conducted by Sir Thomas Legg.
Alison Seabeck – P. 129
Double paid £795 for rent in November 2005.
Was overpaid £1,167 for mortgage interest in October 2007.
Overpaid £444.65 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,406.65
Paid - £1,612.65
Amount Outstanding - £794.00
Barry Sheerman – P. 130
Was overpaid a total of £331.95 for mortgage interest in 2005-06 to 2006-07.
Was overpaid £225.26 for council tax across 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £557.21
Paid - £311.95
Amount Outstanding - £245.26
Clare Short – P. 131
Paid twice for house repair claim of £599.14 in 2006
Overpaid by 189.90 in 2005 when payments should have been reduced on the dissolution of parliament.
Paid £1,206.50 for mobile phone bill charged to the ACA when this should have been claimed under Incidental Expenses Provision.
Paid £3,736 for gardening over three years which exceeded the maximum allowable by £736.
Paid cleaning costs of £2,546.40 in 2006-07 which exceeded the allowable limit of £456.40.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,187.94
Paid - £599.14
Amount Outstanding - £2,588.80
Alan Simpson – P. 131
Overpaid by £1,503.67 for mortgage interest in 2008.
Has failed to provide sufficient evidence for mortgage interest payments for January to March 2009 for claims of £2,265.
Paid £2,527.50 for cleaning in 2004-05, exceeding the maximum allowance by £527.50.
Overpaid £219.72 for water bills in 2008-09.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £4,515.89
Paid - £219.72
Amount Outstanding - £4,296.17
Keith Simpson – P. 132
Paid twice in 2006 for a phone bill for £120.74.
Paid £209.87 out of his ACA for a phone bill which relates to his constituency office rather than his second home in 2004.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £330.61
Amount Outstanding - £330.61
Marsha Singh – P. 132
Overpaid £4,505.44 for mortgage interest over four years.
Paid £521.40 for mobile phone bills which are not allowed under the ACA.
Legg recommended Repayment - £5,026.84
Amount Outstanding - £5,026.84
Angela E Smith – P. 133
Overpaid £1,428.81 in mortgage interest over four years.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,428.81
Amount Outstanding - £1,428.81
John Smith – P. 134
Mortgage interest payments not correctly adjusted around time of dissolution of Parliament by £683.78.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £683.78
Amount Outstanding - £683.78
Michael Spicer – P. 135
Claimed £15,612.87 for gardening over the five year period, exceeding the £1,000 annual limit by £10,612.87.
Claimed £10,179 for cleaning over a three year period, exceeding the £2,000 annual limit by £4,179.
Was paid £730 for a dishwasher in 2005, exceeding the guideline price by £317.50.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £15,109.37
Paid - £5,109.37
Amount Outstanding - £10,000
Gerry Sutcliffe – P. 138
Overpaid by £2,361 for mortgage interest in 2004-05 as these payments included capital repayment.
Paid £125.14 for mobile phone costs claimed on the ACA which is not allowed.
There is an additional £300 of overpayments spread over some unspecified claims over the five year review period.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,786.14
Amount Outstanding - £2,786.14
Dr Des Turner – P. 141
Was overpaid by £1,930.94 for mortgage interest over five years.
Was additionally overpaid by £2,476.72 for mortgage payment protection which is not allowed under the ACA.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £4,407.66
Amount Outstanding - £4,407.66
Sir Peter Viggers – P. 143
Sir Peter had an arrangement with the fees office to receive periodic payments regarding the total running costs of his second home. Upon review the Legg report concludes that £15,293.12 went towards gardening over the review exceeding the maximum allowable by £10,511.62.
He was overpaid by £1,637.54 for roof repairs in July 2007.
He was further overpaid £759.54 for mortgage interest in the year 2008-09.
He was overpaid by a total of £556.60 for council tax in 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £13,464.30
Reduction, by appeal - £218.50
Amount Outstanding - £13,245.80
Ben Wallace – P. 144
Overpaid by £1,079.99 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,079.99
Amount Outstanding - £1,079.99
Robert Wareing – P. 145
Was paid £11,462.58 over five year period, exceeding the maximum of £2,000 annually by £1,462.58.
Paid twice for unspecified expenses relating to the period of 24th February to 17th March 2005, resulting in an overpayment of £1,296.30.
His mortgage interest payments were overstated by £574.31 in 2004-05 and £558.81 in 2005-06 resulting in an overpayment of £1,113.12.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,892.00
Reduction, by appeal - £215.86
Amount Outstanding - £3,676.14
Betty Williams – P. 147
Was overpaid by £750.25 in mortgage interest over five years.
Legg recommended Repayment - £750.25
Amount Outstanding - £750.25
Shaun Woodward – P151
Overpaid by £656.24 for mortgage interest in 2007-08.
Overpaid by £813.91 for mortgage interest in 2005-06 when payments were not reduced correctly based on the dissolution of Parliament.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,470.15
Paid - £1,426.42
Amount Outstanding - £43.73
Phil Woolas – P. 151
Was overpaid by £3,350.86 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.
Was paid for gas standing charges of £60 in January, February & March 2008 which were not debited from his account, resulting in a £180 overpayment.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,530.86
Reduced, by appeal - £2,644.70
Amount Outstanding - £886.16
Derek Wyatt – P. 152
Overpaid for mortgage interest by totalling £718.01 for the periods 2005-06 and 2008-09.
Overpaid by £776.76 for service charges in 2004-05.
Paid £666.43 twice for various items in 2005-06 and 2008-09.
Overpaid by £1,290.30 for council tax across four years.
He was paid £160 twice for cleaning and ironing in November 2008.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,611.50
Amount Outstanding - £3,611.50
Alison Seabeck – P. 129
Double paid £795 for rent in November 2005.
Was overpaid £1,167 for mortgage interest in October 2007.
Overpaid £444.65 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,406.65
Paid - £1,612.65
Amount Outstanding - £794.00
Barry Sheerman – P. 130
Was overpaid a total of £331.95 for mortgage interest in 2005-06 to 2006-07.
Was overpaid £225.26 for council tax across 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £557.21
Paid - £311.95
Amount Outstanding - £245.26
Clare Short – P. 131
Paid twice for house repair claim of £599.14 in 2006
Overpaid by 189.90 in 2005 when payments should have been reduced on the dissolution of parliament.
Paid £1,206.50 for mobile phone bill charged to the ACA when this should have been claimed under Incidental Expenses Provision.
Paid £3,736 for gardening over three years which exceeded the maximum allowable by £736.
Paid cleaning costs of £2,546.40 in 2006-07 which exceeded the allowable limit of £456.40.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,187.94
Paid - £599.14
Amount Outstanding - £2,588.80
Alan Simpson – P. 131
Overpaid by £1,503.67 for mortgage interest in 2008.
Has failed to provide sufficient evidence for mortgage interest payments for January to March 2009 for claims of £2,265.
Paid £2,527.50 for cleaning in 2004-05, exceeding the maximum allowance by £527.50.
Overpaid £219.72 for water bills in 2008-09.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £4,515.89
Paid - £219.72
Amount Outstanding - £4,296.17
Keith Simpson – P. 132
Paid twice in 2006 for a phone bill for £120.74.
Paid £209.87 out of his ACA for a phone bill which relates to his constituency office rather than his second home in 2004.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £330.61
Amount Outstanding - £330.61
Marsha Singh – P. 132
Overpaid £4,505.44 for mortgage interest over four years.
Paid £521.40 for mobile phone bills which are not allowed under the ACA.
Legg recommended Repayment - £5,026.84
Amount Outstanding - £5,026.84
Angela E Smith – P. 133
Overpaid £1,428.81 in mortgage interest over four years.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,428.81
Amount Outstanding - £1,428.81
John Smith – P. 134
Mortgage interest payments not correctly adjusted around time of dissolution of Parliament by £683.78.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £683.78
Amount Outstanding - £683.78
Michael Spicer – P. 135
Claimed £15,612.87 for gardening over the five year period, exceeding the £1,000 annual limit by £10,612.87.
Claimed £10,179 for cleaning over a three year period, exceeding the £2,000 annual limit by £4,179.
Was paid £730 for a dishwasher in 2005, exceeding the guideline price by £317.50.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £15,109.37
Paid - £5,109.37
Amount Outstanding - £10,000
Gerry Sutcliffe – P. 138
Overpaid by £2,361 for mortgage interest in 2004-05 as these payments included capital repayment.
Paid £125.14 for mobile phone costs claimed on the ACA which is not allowed.
There is an additional £300 of overpayments spread over some unspecified claims over the five year review period.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,786.14
Amount Outstanding - £2,786.14
Dr Des Turner – P. 141
Was overpaid by £1,930.94 for mortgage interest over five years.
Was additionally overpaid by £2,476.72 for mortgage payment protection which is not allowed under the ACA.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £4,407.66
Amount Outstanding - £4,407.66
Sir Peter Viggers – P. 143
Sir Peter had an arrangement with the fees office to receive periodic payments regarding the total running costs of his second home. Upon review the Legg report concludes that £15,293.12 went towards gardening over the review exceeding the maximum allowable by £10,511.62.
He was overpaid by £1,637.54 for roof repairs in July 2007.
He was further overpaid £759.54 for mortgage interest in the year 2008-09.
He was overpaid by a total of £556.60 for council tax in 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £13,464.30
Reduction, by appeal - £218.50
Amount Outstanding - £13,245.80
Ben Wallace – P. 144
Overpaid by £1,079.99 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,079.99
Amount Outstanding - £1,079.99
Robert Wareing – P. 145
Was paid £11,462.58 over five year period, exceeding the maximum of £2,000 annually by £1,462.58.
Paid twice for unspecified expenses relating to the period of 24th February to 17th March 2005, resulting in an overpayment of £1,296.30.
His mortgage interest payments were overstated by £574.31 in 2004-05 and £558.81 in 2005-06 resulting in an overpayment of £1,113.12.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,892.00
Reduction, by appeal - £215.86
Amount Outstanding - £3,676.14
Betty Williams – P. 147
Was overpaid by £750.25 in mortgage interest over five years.
Legg recommended Repayment - £750.25
Amount Outstanding - £750.25
Shaun Woodward – P151
Overpaid by £656.24 for mortgage interest in 2007-08.
Overpaid by £813.91 for mortgage interest in 2005-06 when payments were not reduced correctly based on the dissolution of Parliament.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,470.15
Paid - £1,426.42
Amount Outstanding - £43.73
Phil Woolas – P. 151
Was overpaid by £3,350.86 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.
Was paid for gas standing charges of £60 in January, February & March 2008 which were not debited from his account, resulting in a £180 overpayment.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,530.86
Reduced, by appeal - £2,644.70
Amount Outstanding - £886.16
Derek Wyatt – P. 152
Overpaid for mortgage interest by totalling £718.01 for the periods 2005-06 and 2008-09.
Overpaid by £776.76 for service charges in 2004-05.
Paid £666.43 twice for various items in 2005-06 and 2008-09.
Overpaid by £1,290.30 for council tax across four years.
He was paid £160 twice for cleaning and ironing in November 2008.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,611.50
Amount Outstanding - £3,611.50
Troughers Charged
Excellent news.
Kier Starmer the Director of Public Prosecutions has announced that Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield are to be prosecuted.
Morley who is the Labour Party MP for Scunthorpe is charged with two counts of false accounting. The first charge relates to his mortgage claims between 2004 and 2006 where he pocketed in excess of £14,000. The second charge relates to mortgage claims between March 2006 into 2007 when he was claiming on the same property despite there no longer being a mortgage on that property.
David Chaytor who is Labour Party MP for Bury North faces three charges. The first is for a claim for IT services for £1,950 using false invoices. The second is for claims of £12,925 in rent of a property that he in fact owns. The third charge is for claims between September 2007 and January 2008 when claiming rent for a property that actually belongs to his mother.
Jim Devine is the Labour Party MP for Livingstone and a former minister and faces two charges. The first for claims of dry cleaning totalling £3,240 using false invoices in 2008 and 2009. The second charge relates to stationery claims totalling over £5,000 made using false invoices.
Lord Hanningfield is a Conservative Peer and he faces six charges all relating to false accounting. Some of his claims for overnight stays are contradicted by records which show he was driven home.
Each of them could see themselves face gaol time of upto seven years. This blogger hopes that the prosecution team makes a very public example of these men for their crimes which have had an immeasurable effect on the whole nation. If there is further evidence of wrong doing passed to the Police, and I believe there may be, I hope the example setting does not end with these four.
Kier Starmer the Director of Public Prosecutions has announced that Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield are to be prosecuted.
Morley who is the Labour Party MP for Scunthorpe is charged with two counts of false accounting. The first charge relates to his mortgage claims between 2004 and 2006 where he pocketed in excess of £14,000. The second charge relates to mortgage claims between March 2006 into 2007 when he was claiming on the same property despite there no longer being a mortgage on that property.
David Chaytor who is Labour Party MP for Bury North faces three charges. The first is for a claim for IT services for £1,950 using false invoices. The second is for claims of £12,925 in rent of a property that he in fact owns. The third charge is for claims between September 2007 and January 2008 when claiming rent for a property that actually belongs to his mother.
Jim Devine is the Labour Party MP for Livingstone and a former minister and faces two charges. The first for claims of dry cleaning totalling £3,240 using false invoices in 2008 and 2009. The second charge relates to stationery claims totalling over £5,000 made using false invoices.
Lord Hanningfield is a Conservative Peer and he faces six charges all relating to false accounting. Some of his claims for overnight stays are contradicted by records which show he was driven home.
Each of them could see themselves face gaol time of upto seven years. This blogger hopes that the prosecution team makes a very public example of these men for their crimes which have had an immeasurable effect on the whole nation. If there is further evidence of wrong doing passed to the Police, and I believe there may be, I hope the example setting does not end with these four.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Legg's Rebels - M - R
Following on from my earlier post here are the sitting MP's with surnames M - R who have not repaid based on the Legg Enquiry as per todays report. From the news tonight, the CPS is said to be looking at these from tomorrow.
Dr Denis MacShane – P. 102
Dr MacShane was paid cleaning costs of £7,354 for the years 2004-05 to 2007-08 which exceeded the £2,000 per year limit by £1,354.34.
In September and October 2008 he was paid for gas without providing sufficient evidence that it related to his second home as the invoice related to his first home.
He has also been requested to provide mortgage interest statements to back up claims totalling £6,001.34 for the period April 2004 to January 2006 and has been allowed until the 1st March 2010 to provide them.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,507.73
Potential Future Repayments - £6,001.34
Paid - £1,354.33
Amount Outstanding - £153.20
Khalid Mahmood – P. 102
Overpaid 211.30 for mortgage interest for April – September 2004
Overpaid for rent by £332.91 for April – July 2005
Legg Recommended Repayment - £544.21
Amount Outstanding - £544.21
Shahid Malik – P. 103
Claimed £1,050 for a T.V. in February 2006. This exceeded the guideline price of £825 by £225.
He was overpaid by £935.56 for council tax payments in 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Claimed £65 in court summons costs, not allowed green book rules.
Claimed £730 for an armchair in 2007 which exceeds the guideline price of £550 by £180.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £ 1,340.56
Paid - £1,304.43
Amount Outstanding - £36.14
Anne McIntosh – P. 107
Received £4,948 for gardening costs over a four year period which exceeds the allowable amount by £948.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £948
Amount Outstanding - £948
Patrick Mercer OBE – P. 109
Paid twice for £2,273.06 on mortgage interest claim in 2004.
Overpaid by £1,099.51 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,372.57
Paid - £2,273.06
Amount Outstanding - £1,099.51
Anne Moffat – P. 112
Overpaid by £1,617.09 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.
Claimed £1,256.44 for items relating to her main home in 2008-09.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,873.53
Amount Outstanding - £2,873.53
Madeleine Moon – P. 112
Received £599.25 for cost of removals from Wales to London in 2005 deemed to be excessive.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £599.25
Paid - £88.96
Amount Outstanding - £510.29
Kali Mountford – P. 113
Claimed for taxis totalling £340.40 on ACA which is not allowed.
Overpaid for £832.97 on council tax in 2007-08.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,965.70
Amount Outstanding - £1,965.70
George Mudie – P. 114
Overpaid by £182.51 for mortgage interest in 2007-08
Legg Recommended Repayment - £182.51
Amount Outstanding - £182.51
Dennis Murray - P. 115
Overpaid by £136.16 in mortgage interest 2004-05 to 2005-06.
Paid £25 for rejected Direct Debit payment and a £25 collect fee in 2008, neither of which is allowed under the ACA.
He was paid £9,652.68 for cleaning costs over four years exceeding the maximum allowance by £1,652.68.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,841.84
Amount Outstanding - £1,841.84
Paul Murphy - P. 115
Paid £2,830 for cleaning in 2004-05, exceeding the limit by £830.
Claimed £1,280 for a wardrobe in 2005, exceeding the guideline price by £510.
Overpaid by a total of £1,140.72 for mortgage interest in 2007-08 and 2008-09.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,480.72
Paid - £243.00
Amount Outstanding - £2,237.72
Kenneth Purchase - P. 123
Overpaid by £1,000.12 for mortgage interest over four years.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,000.12
Amount Outstanding - £1,000.12
Andy Reed – P. 124
Paid twice for quarterly service charges in a number of incidents totalling £891.48
Legg Recommended Repayment - £891.48
Amount Outstanding - £891.48
Linda Riordan – P. 125
Overpaid by £2,021.81 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.
Paid £150 twice for ground rent in 2008.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,171.81
Amount Outstanding - £2,171.81
John W Robertson – P. 125
Claimed £1,750 in petty cash in 2004 which is not allowed.
Paid £7,225 for cleaning costs across 2004-05 and 2005-06 exceeding maximum allowed claim by £1,225.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,975.00
Amount Outstanding - £2,975.00
Terence Rooney – P. 126
Overpaid by £167.00 for mortgage interest across 2005-06 and 2007-08.
Overpaid by a net £130.02 for mortgage interest in 2008-09 (taking into account an estimated underpayment in the last three months of that year).
Legg Recommended Repayment - £297.02
Amount Outstanding - £297.02
Joan Ryan – P. 128
Overpaid by £5,121.74 as the claims included capital repayments.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £5,121.74
Paid - £322.45
Amount Outstanding - £4,799.29
Read the rules and give us our money back!
Dr Denis MacShane – P. 102
Dr MacShane was paid cleaning costs of £7,354 for the years 2004-05 to 2007-08 which exceeded the £2,000 per year limit by £1,354.34.
In September and October 2008 he was paid for gas without providing sufficient evidence that it related to his second home as the invoice related to his first home.
He has also been requested to provide mortgage interest statements to back up claims totalling £6,001.34 for the period April 2004 to January 2006 and has been allowed until the 1st March 2010 to provide them.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,507.73
Potential Future Repayments - £6,001.34
Paid - £1,354.33
Amount Outstanding - £153.20
Khalid Mahmood – P. 102
Overpaid 211.30 for mortgage interest for April – September 2004
Overpaid for rent by £332.91 for April – July 2005
Legg Recommended Repayment - £544.21
Amount Outstanding - £544.21
Shahid Malik – P. 103
Claimed £1,050 for a T.V. in February 2006. This exceeded the guideline price of £825 by £225.
He was overpaid by £935.56 for council tax payments in 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Claimed £65 in court summons costs, not allowed green book rules.
Claimed £730 for an armchair in 2007 which exceeds the guideline price of £550 by £180.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £ 1,340.56
Paid - £1,304.43
Amount Outstanding - £36.14
Anne McIntosh – P. 107
Received £4,948 for gardening costs over a four year period which exceeds the allowable amount by £948.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £948
Amount Outstanding - £948
Patrick Mercer OBE – P. 109
Paid twice for £2,273.06 on mortgage interest claim in 2004.
Overpaid by £1,099.51 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,372.57
Paid - £2,273.06
Amount Outstanding - £1,099.51
Anne Moffat – P. 112
Overpaid by £1,617.09 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.
Claimed £1,256.44 for items relating to her main home in 2008-09.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,873.53
Amount Outstanding - £2,873.53
Madeleine Moon – P. 112
Received £599.25 for cost of removals from Wales to London in 2005 deemed to be excessive.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £599.25
Paid - £88.96
Amount Outstanding - £510.29
Kali Mountford – P. 113
Claimed for taxis totalling £340.40 on ACA which is not allowed.
Overpaid for £832.97 on council tax in 2007-08.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,965.70
Amount Outstanding - £1,965.70
George Mudie – P. 114
Overpaid by £182.51 for mortgage interest in 2007-08
Legg Recommended Repayment - £182.51
Amount Outstanding - £182.51
Dennis Murray - P. 115
Overpaid by £136.16 in mortgage interest 2004-05 to 2005-06.
Paid £25 for rejected Direct Debit payment and a £25 collect fee in 2008, neither of which is allowed under the ACA.
He was paid £9,652.68 for cleaning costs over four years exceeding the maximum allowance by £1,652.68.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,841.84
Amount Outstanding - £1,841.84
Paul Murphy - P. 115
Paid £2,830 for cleaning in 2004-05, exceeding the limit by £830.
Claimed £1,280 for a wardrobe in 2005, exceeding the guideline price by £510.
Overpaid by a total of £1,140.72 for mortgage interest in 2007-08 and 2008-09.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,480.72
Paid - £243.00
Amount Outstanding - £2,237.72
Kenneth Purchase - P. 123
Overpaid by £1,000.12 for mortgage interest over four years.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,000.12
Amount Outstanding - £1,000.12
Andy Reed – P. 124
Paid twice for quarterly service charges in a number of incidents totalling £891.48
Legg Recommended Repayment - £891.48
Amount Outstanding - £891.48
Linda Riordan – P. 125
Overpaid by £2,021.81 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.
Paid £150 twice for ground rent in 2008.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,171.81
Amount Outstanding - £2,171.81
John W Robertson – P. 125
Claimed £1,750 in petty cash in 2004 which is not allowed.
Paid £7,225 for cleaning costs across 2004-05 and 2005-06 exceeding maximum allowed claim by £1,225.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,975.00
Amount Outstanding - £2,975.00
Terence Rooney – P. 126
Overpaid by £167.00 for mortgage interest across 2005-06 and 2007-08.
Overpaid by a net £130.02 for mortgage interest in 2008-09 (taking into account an estimated underpayment in the last three months of that year).
Legg Recommended Repayment - £297.02
Amount Outstanding - £297.02
Joan Ryan – P. 128
Overpaid by £5,121.74 as the claims included capital repayments.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £5,121.74
Paid - £322.45
Amount Outstanding - £4,799.29
Read the rules and give us our money back!
Legg's Rebels - A to L
I have managed to scan the Legg report, and there are quite a few Rebels who have paid back only part, or none of what Legg has requested back.
I reckon the number tops over 10% of all surveyed, and over 20% of those asked to pay back. Strangely, there is a large number of MP's who have paid back more than asked, sometimes by a ridiculous variance that raises new questions.
Here are the rebels, I will refresh as I update. Page reference is as per the .pdf page, as viewed here - in case you want to go see what the report states.
Margaret Beckett - P. 37. Gardening Claims exceeded maximum allowance by £2,539.75 between 2006 & 2008.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,539.75
Amount Outstanding - £2,539.75
Nick Brown (Chief Whip) - P43. Over claimed for a cleaner. Total Cost claimed was £8,697.65 over the four-year period which exceeded the maximum allowable claim level by £697.65. This must be embarrassing for the Gordon Brown as he can't send the Whip after wrongdoers, if the Whip himself is rebelling!
Legg Recommended Repayment - £697.65
Amount Outstanding - £697.65
Gregory Campbell - P.47 Lot's of wrong claims here.
Overpaid by £741 on hotel stays between October 2004 & March 2006
Overpaid by £1,456.54 on service charges
Overpaid by £458.56 on ground Rent
No Documents to support claims for £1,017.28 for mortgage interest in December 2008 which Legg must then regard as invalid and the whole sum subject to repayment.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,673.38
Amount Outstanding - £3,673.38
Paul Clark - P.50.
Paid £549.95 for a new washing machine which exceeded the guideline price by £164.95
In default of evidence to support mortage interest payments totalling £11,750.35 for 2008-09.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £11,915.30
Repaid - £508.43
Amount Outstanding - £11,406.87
Show us the receipts Paul!
Nadine Dorries - P. 61.
Paid £882.31 twice for same hotel expenses in January 2007
Paid £161.04 twice for Internet service in April 2007
Paid £271.02 twice for telephone bill in 2008-09.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,314.37
Amount Outstanding - £1,314.37
Don't make US ask twice for the money back!
Barbara Follett - P. 67
Paid £34,776.30 between April 2004 and November 2008 for mobile security patrols at her Second Home. This exceeds the Green Books remit of 'Basis Security Measures'
Paid £8,908.36 for SIX phone lines for the second house. Deemed excessive and half the amount of £4.454.18 marked for repayment.
Overpaid by £2,812.95 in 2004-05 and 2006-07 for additional household premium for fine art, which is not allowable.
Paid £221 twice for boiler insurance in 2004.
Paid £193.78 for pest control in 2006 against an address other than her second home.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £42,458.21
Paid - £32,976.17
Amount Outstanding - £9,482.04
Have hubby pay for the additional personal security and make do like the rest of us! - Clearly a top trougher.
Don Foster - P. 68
In 2005 took out an additional second mortgage against his second home for a purpose not allowed under the ACA. As a result he was overpaid by £3,557.02.
Overpaid £193.72 in April - June 2007 on mortgage interest.
Paid £525 twice in £2008-09 for mortgage and term valuation fees.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £4,275.74
Amount Outstanding - £4,275.74
Edward Garnier - P.70
Paid £1,920 for Gardening in 2005-06, which exceeds annual allowance by £920
Overpaid by a total of £301.68 for rent in 2006-07 and 2008-09 periods.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,221.68
Amount Outstanding - £1,221.68
Andrew George - P.71
Paid £1,397.34 twice for hotel costs in May 2005
Overpaid by a total of £159.44 for food in 2004-05 & 2005-06.
Overpaid by £694.44 for Council Tax in 2008-09.
Overpaid by £1,695.12 for mortgage interest in 2008-09 as two monthly claims were duplicated.
Overpaid by £168.08 in 2008-09 for duplicate payments of telephone & electricity costs.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £4.348.25
Paid - £3,160.41
Amount Outstanding - £1,178.84
That's a lot of duplicate claims!
Mike Hall - P. 76
Paid £10,364.28 over four years for laundry, dry cleaning and ironing services. This exceeds the £2,000 annual limit by £2,364.28.
Paid himself £250 Petty Cash out of ACA allowance - Not allowable in Green Book.
Also paid £250 for incidental expenses in September & October 2004; such expenses not allowed under the Green Book.
Paid £8,789 for 'household sundries' without providing any receipts.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £12,639.28
Amount Outstanding - £12,639.28
Pay it back you troughing git!
David Hamilton - P. 77
Overpiad for mortgage interest over five years totalling £2,595.51
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,595.51
Amount Outstanding - £2,595.51
David Heathcoat-Amory - P79
Paid for cleaning costs of £12,995.35 over 5 years. Exceeding £2,000 annual limit by £2,995.35.
Paid £30,696.58 for Gardening over 4 year period. This exceeds the £1,000 annual limit by £26,696.58.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £29,691.93
Paid - £6,122.24
Amount Outstanding - £23,569.69
Pay it back, then cut your own lawn and wash your own clothes as we ain;t paying nay more!
Geoff Hoon - P. 83
Overpaid by £1,013.13 on mortgage interest.
Paid £138.29 for gas bill twice.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,151.42
Paid - £383.76
Amount Outstanding - £767.66
Pay it back you utter, utter Hoon.
Dr Kim Howells – P.85
Overpaid by £665.11 for mortgage interest between 2006 & 2009.
Overpaid by £288 for a gas bill in 2008-09
Legg Recommended Repayment - £953.11
Paid - £294
Amount Outstanding - £659.11
Huw Irranca-Davies - P. 87
Overpaid by £2,008.19 for mortgage interest over 5 years.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,008.19
Amount Outstanding - £2,008.19
Dr Lynne Jones – P. 89
Paid £815 twice for heating and radiator repairs in July and August 2005.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £815
Amount Outstanding - £815
Eric Joyce – P. 90
Overpaid by £5,002.56 for mortgage interest between 2004-05 and 2007-08.
Paid twice for a £3,000 claim for mortgage interest in November and December 2007
Also paid twice in the same period for council tax, cleaning and service/maintenance claims totalling £600.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £8,605.56
Amount Outstanding - £8,605.56
Alan Keen – P. 91
Alan claimed £1,790 for a cleaner in 2006-07. However, Alans wife, Ann Keen is also an MP and she claimed £1,000 for a cleaner at the same time and address. Thus, there is a £790amount in excess of the allowable limit to be split between the two of them.
Legg Repayment Request - £345
Amount Outstanding - £345
Ruth Kelly – P. 92
Overpaid by a total of £441.47 in mortgage interest for the years 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2008-09.
She was paid £476.39 twice for her February 2008 mortgage interest claim.
Claimed £157.90 in 2008-09 for newspapers which is not allowed under the ACA.
She was paid £631.58 in November 2008 for mortgage arrears relating back to 2003 which is not a permissible claim.
Legg Repayment Request - £1,707.34
Amount Outstanding - £1,707.34
Jim Knight – P. 94
Overpaid by £223.50 incorrectly in April 2005 after incorrectly calculated around dissolution.
He was overpaid by a total of £2,657.11 for mortgage interest between 2007-08 and 2008-09.
Claimed for a computer costing £571.06 which should not have been claimed via the ACA.
Legg Repayment Request - £3,451.67
Paid - £1,256.84
Amount Outstanding - £2,185.83
Jacqui Lait – P. 95
Overpaid by £622.94 for mortgage interest in the years 2007 & 2008.
Has not provided sufficient evidence for claims made in the period January to March 2009 which it is therefore recommended it be repaid in full.
Legg Repayment Request - £1,041.59
Paid - £87.67
Amount Outstanding - £953.92
Tom Levitt – P. 97
Overpaid by a total of £800.95 between April 2004 and March 2006 on mortgage interest.
Claimed £1,599 for a sofabed which exceeds the relevant guideline price by of £1,210 by £389.
Legg Repayment Request - £1,189.95
Paid - £412.00
Amount Outstanding - £777.95
No point asking if you sleep comfortably at night; your guests clearly do.
Sir Michael Lord – P. 99
Paid £8,784.76 for gardening costs between march 2005 and January 2009 which exceeds the maximum allowable limit by £4,874.76.
Overpaid by £289.72 on mortgage interest for two time periods.
Legg Repayment Request - £5,074.48
Amount Outstanding - £5,074.48
I reckon the number tops over 10% of all surveyed, and over 20% of those asked to pay back. Strangely, there is a large number of MP's who have paid back more than asked, sometimes by a ridiculous variance that raises new questions.
Here are the rebels, I will refresh as I update. Page reference is as per the .pdf page, as viewed here - in case you want to go see what the report states.
Margaret Beckett - P. 37. Gardening Claims exceeded maximum allowance by £2,539.75 between 2006 & 2008.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,539.75
Amount Outstanding - £2,539.75
Nick Brown (Chief Whip) - P43. Over claimed for a cleaner. Total Cost claimed was £8,697.65 over the four-year period which exceeded the maximum allowable claim level by £697.65. This must be embarrassing for the Gordon Brown as he can't send the Whip after wrongdoers, if the Whip himself is rebelling!
Legg Recommended Repayment - £697.65
Amount Outstanding - £697.65
Gregory Campbell - P.47 Lot's of wrong claims here.
Overpaid by £741 on hotel stays between October 2004 & March 2006
Overpaid by £1,456.54 on service charges
Overpaid by £458.56 on ground Rent
No Documents to support claims for £1,017.28 for mortgage interest in December 2008 which Legg must then regard as invalid and the whole sum subject to repayment.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,673.38
Amount Outstanding - £3,673.38
Paul Clark - P.50.
Paid £549.95 for a new washing machine which exceeded the guideline price by £164.95
In default of evidence to support mortage interest payments totalling £11,750.35 for 2008-09.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £11,915.30
Repaid - £508.43
Amount Outstanding - £11,406.87
Show us the receipts Paul!
Nadine Dorries - P. 61.
Paid £882.31 twice for same hotel expenses in January 2007
Paid £161.04 twice for Internet service in April 2007
Paid £271.02 twice for telephone bill in 2008-09.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,314.37
Amount Outstanding - £1,314.37
Don't make US ask twice for the money back!
Barbara Follett - P. 67
Paid £34,776.30 between April 2004 and November 2008 for mobile security patrols at her Second Home. This exceeds the Green Books remit of 'Basis Security Measures'
Paid £8,908.36 for SIX phone lines for the second house. Deemed excessive and half the amount of £4.454.18 marked for repayment.
Overpaid by £2,812.95 in 2004-05 and 2006-07 for additional household premium for fine art, which is not allowable.
Paid £221 twice for boiler insurance in 2004.
Paid £193.78 for pest control in 2006 against an address other than her second home.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £42,458.21
Paid - £32,976.17
Amount Outstanding - £9,482.04
Have hubby pay for the additional personal security and make do like the rest of us! - Clearly a top trougher.
Don Foster - P. 68
In 2005 took out an additional second mortgage against his second home for a purpose not allowed under the ACA. As a result he was overpaid by £3,557.02.
Overpaid £193.72 in April - June 2007 on mortgage interest.
Paid £525 twice in £2008-09 for mortgage and term valuation fees.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £4,275.74
Amount Outstanding - £4,275.74
Edward Garnier - P.70
Paid £1,920 for Gardening in 2005-06, which exceeds annual allowance by £920
Overpaid by a total of £301.68 for rent in 2006-07 and 2008-09 periods.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,221.68
Amount Outstanding - £1,221.68
Andrew George - P.71
Paid £1,397.34 twice for hotel costs in May 2005
Overpaid by a total of £159.44 for food in 2004-05 & 2005-06.
Overpaid by £694.44 for Council Tax in 2008-09.
Overpaid by £1,695.12 for mortgage interest in 2008-09 as two monthly claims were duplicated.
Overpaid by £168.08 in 2008-09 for duplicate payments of telephone & electricity costs.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £4.348.25
Paid - £3,160.41
Amount Outstanding - £1,178.84
That's a lot of duplicate claims!
Mike Hall - P. 76
Paid £10,364.28 over four years for laundry, dry cleaning and ironing services. This exceeds the £2,000 annual limit by £2,364.28.
Paid himself £250 Petty Cash out of ACA allowance - Not allowable in Green Book.
Also paid £250 for incidental expenses in September & October 2004; such expenses not allowed under the Green Book.
Paid £8,789 for 'household sundries' without providing any receipts.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £12,639.28
Amount Outstanding - £12,639.28
Pay it back you troughing git!
David Hamilton - P. 77
Overpiad for mortgage interest over five years totalling £2,595.51
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,595.51
Amount Outstanding - £2,595.51
David Heathcoat-Amory - P79
Paid for cleaning costs of £12,995.35 over 5 years. Exceeding £2,000 annual limit by £2,995.35.
Paid £30,696.58 for Gardening over 4 year period. This exceeds the £1,000 annual limit by £26,696.58.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £29,691.93
Paid - £6,122.24
Amount Outstanding - £23,569.69
Pay it back, then cut your own lawn and wash your own clothes as we ain;t paying nay more!
Geoff Hoon - P. 83
Overpaid by £1,013.13 on mortgage interest.
Paid £138.29 for gas bill twice.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,151.42
Paid - £383.76
Amount Outstanding - £767.66
Pay it back you utter, utter Hoon.
Dr Kim Howells – P.85
Overpaid by £665.11 for mortgage interest between 2006 & 2009.
Overpaid by £288 for a gas bill in 2008-09
Legg Recommended Repayment - £953.11
Paid - £294
Amount Outstanding - £659.11
Huw Irranca-Davies - P. 87
Overpaid by £2,008.19 for mortgage interest over 5 years.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,008.19
Amount Outstanding - £2,008.19
Dr Lynne Jones – P. 89
Paid £815 twice for heating and radiator repairs in July and August 2005.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £815
Amount Outstanding - £815
Eric Joyce – P. 90
Overpaid by £5,002.56 for mortgage interest between 2004-05 and 2007-08.
Paid twice for a £3,000 claim for mortgage interest in November and December 2007
Also paid twice in the same period for council tax, cleaning and service/maintenance claims totalling £600.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £8,605.56
Amount Outstanding - £8,605.56
Alan Keen – P. 91
Alan claimed £1,790 for a cleaner in 2006-07. However, Alans wife, Ann Keen is also an MP and she claimed £1,000 for a cleaner at the same time and address. Thus, there is a £790amount in excess of the allowable limit to be split between the two of them.
Legg Repayment Request - £345
Amount Outstanding - £345
Ruth Kelly – P. 92
Overpaid by a total of £441.47 in mortgage interest for the years 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2008-09.
She was paid £476.39 twice for her February 2008 mortgage interest claim.
Claimed £157.90 in 2008-09 for newspapers which is not allowed under the ACA.
She was paid £631.58 in November 2008 for mortgage arrears relating back to 2003 which is not a permissible claim.
Legg Repayment Request - £1,707.34
Amount Outstanding - £1,707.34
Jim Knight – P. 94
Overpaid by £223.50 incorrectly in April 2005 after incorrectly calculated around dissolution.
He was overpaid by a total of £2,657.11 for mortgage interest between 2007-08 and 2008-09.
Claimed for a computer costing £571.06 which should not have been claimed via the ACA.
Legg Repayment Request - £3,451.67
Paid - £1,256.84
Amount Outstanding - £2,185.83
Jacqui Lait – P. 95
Overpaid by £622.94 for mortgage interest in the years 2007 & 2008.
Has not provided sufficient evidence for claims made in the period January to March 2009 which it is therefore recommended it be repaid in full.
Legg Repayment Request - £1,041.59
Paid - £87.67
Amount Outstanding - £953.92
Tom Levitt – P. 97
Overpaid by a total of £800.95 between April 2004 and March 2006 on mortgage interest.
Claimed £1,599 for a sofabed which exceeds the relevant guideline price by of £1,210 by £389.
Legg Repayment Request - £1,189.95
Paid - £412.00
Amount Outstanding - £777.95
No point asking if you sleep comfortably at night; your guests clearly do.
Sir Michael Lord – P. 99
Paid £8,784.76 for gardening costs between march 2005 and January 2009 which exceeds the maximum allowable limit by £4,874.76.
Overpaid by £289.72 on mortgage interest for two time periods.
Legg Repayment Request - £5,074.48
Amount Outstanding - £5,074.48
Is The Chief Whip Off Message?
Just skimming through the Legg Report.
Why, after all the talk, and after all of Gordon Browns proclomations about his government fully co-operating with the review, why is it that his right hand man, neighbour in no. 9 and chief enforcer in Parliament not repayed what the review has recommended?
See P.43/44 of the pdf. 38/39 of the published copy.
If the Chief Whip doesn't back the review's recommendations, then no wonder so many MP's have yet to repay. It also demonstrates that Gordon Browns words are just that, words.
Why, after all the talk, and after all of Gordon Browns proclomations about his government fully co-operating with the review, why is it that his right hand man, neighbour in no. 9 and chief enforcer in Parliament not repayed what the review has recommended?
See P.43/44 of the pdf. 38/39 of the published copy.
If the Chief Whip doesn't back the review's recommendations, then no wonder so many MP's have yet to repay. It also demonstrates that Gordon Browns words are just that, words.
Debt Mountain Ain't A Ride At Euro Disney
Here are the current personal debt stats for the UK.
Source.
- Total personal debts stand at £1.46trillion. This includes Mortgages, Credit Cards and Personal Loans.
- The number of people seeking help from Debt agencies has risen 30% in the past year.
- According to the National Audit Office some [at least two] debt advice agencies are turning people away as their waiting lists are too long to be able to assist.
- The £1.46trillion is equal to £56,000 per household. This is 60% above the average pre-tax income.
- "Debt Experts" say that there will be 150,000 new bankruptcies this year, up 15% on last year.
- The Consumer Credit Counselling Service said its typical client has £24,300 of debt across 11 different creditors, painting a grim reality of modern life.
- The Government has committed to spend £142million in providing debt management services, mainly this is for free face to face counselling.
Source.
Voting At The EU Election
I am the kind of person who thinks that it is important that people vote, and that we draw our legislators and political leaders from as many voters as possible. Ballot decisions are representative of the will of society and the higher the turnout in percentage terms, the greater that legitimacy. Despite this, ever since the EU elections earlier this year something has been nagging at me a bit that has made me think a bit differently about this.
It is very, very rare for the bland suits in Brussels to show their fear, but right before the last two EU elections it was noticeable that there is a fear in Brussels about the EU Parliament elections. There are always stories about how if we vote in a bloc of EU Sceptic MEPs certain things will happen, that then never happen and the dialogue turns to "full engagement" and "setting Europe’s direction" which means nothing to the man on the street as we all know that MEPs cannot be influenced by individuals. It is all about lobbyists, corporate handshakes and political movements.
I never really believed the line about the EU "fearing" a British EU Sceptic bloc in the EU Parliament as we could return 78 UKIP MEP's and still have less than 10% of the Parliaments voting power aligned to British EU Sceptic views. As I have said many times, the Parliament is a front, to give the impression of representative democracy where there really is none.
I have now concluded that the fear that I sensed from Brussels is simply this. They need us to turn out to vote to give their window dressing legitimacy. If the people of the EU did not participate in their sham every five years, they could not point to the EU Parliament; and if they can’t point to the EU Parliament they have no pretence for democracy. So, I have already decided that despite my lifelong belief that people should vote, the only way to see the UK out of the EU is to encourage a mass effort of spoilt ballot papers.
In 2004 the UK turnout was 38% and in 2009 it was 34%. Slovakia only managed a 19% turn out, and overall about 45% turned out across the EU. So, I reckon if through encouragement we can get the vote to below 15% for the UK, and if we have not had a referendum by then (looking doubtful) then this might just force the issue. The problem of course is that if the EU sceptic vote does not turn out, then Labour and the Liberals will do well. But frankly does it really make much difference having the EU Sceptic wing their other than the to miss seeing the excellent speeches that Daniel Hannan and Nigel Farage deliver? - Whatever opposition they put up is almost always brushed aside. If not through the Parliament the EU has other ways.
If, by a different analogy which is clearly not the same, but also not a stretch of a million miles; we were, instead of having been lied to and had sovereignty and control handed over by the back door had, instead, had the exact same amount of control seized by a foreign army, and were invited as a conquered nation through a Vichy leadership to partake in the ceremonious electing of representatives to send off to a centralised legislature people who would act as rubber stamp to laws scribed by the totalitarianists who deemed we all must live under the same rule; would we not then accept the only course of action would be to astatine completely from the process itself? So, why are we not actively seeking to disengage ourselves?
There is not a single piece of law or action that the EU has desired that has not eventually been brought it by some manner when opposition has been fronted. The inability to point to a single thing the EU elite has wanted, that they have not got, eventually, proves that the whole regime is rooted to a totalitarianistic agenda, and staffed by despots.
So sorry to UKIP, The Conservatives, and Jury Team who have had my vote in recent years. Though of course your names will not be on the paper, as that is now forbidden as we must elect by EU Groupings rather that by national party (to encourage the groupings to move towards being more Political Party like in a pan-EU sense). I shall make the effort to go to the ballot box in 2014, but I shall be writing upon my paper that I do not recognise the election, nor do I consent to be governed by any other Legislature other than the UK Parliament.
I write this of course in the hope that it will stir some mass call for people to do the same, which I doubt is going to happen, but my mind is made up and I hope others give this some thought too.
It is very, very rare for the bland suits in Brussels to show their fear, but right before the last two EU elections it was noticeable that there is a fear in Brussels about the EU Parliament elections. There are always stories about how if we vote in a bloc of EU Sceptic MEPs certain things will happen, that then never happen and the dialogue turns to "full engagement" and "setting Europe’s direction" which means nothing to the man on the street as we all know that MEPs cannot be influenced by individuals. It is all about lobbyists, corporate handshakes and political movements.
I never really believed the line about the EU "fearing" a British EU Sceptic bloc in the EU Parliament as we could return 78 UKIP MEP's and still have less than 10% of the Parliaments voting power aligned to British EU Sceptic views. As I have said many times, the Parliament is a front, to give the impression of representative democracy where there really is none.
I have now concluded that the fear that I sensed from Brussels is simply this. They need us to turn out to vote to give their window dressing legitimacy. If the people of the EU did not participate in their sham every five years, they could not point to the EU Parliament; and if they can’t point to the EU Parliament they have no pretence for democracy. So, I have already decided that despite my lifelong belief that people should vote, the only way to see the UK out of the EU is to encourage a mass effort of spoilt ballot papers.
In 2004 the UK turnout was 38% and in 2009 it was 34%. Slovakia only managed a 19% turn out, and overall about 45% turned out across the EU. So, I reckon if through encouragement we can get the vote to below 15% for the UK, and if we have not had a referendum by then (looking doubtful) then this might just force the issue. The problem of course is that if the EU sceptic vote does not turn out, then Labour and the Liberals will do well. But frankly does it really make much difference having the EU Sceptic wing their other than the to miss seeing the excellent speeches that Daniel Hannan and Nigel Farage deliver? - Whatever opposition they put up is almost always brushed aside. If not through the Parliament the EU has other ways.
If, by a different analogy which is clearly not the same, but also not a stretch of a million miles; we were, instead of having been lied to and had sovereignty and control handed over by the back door had, instead, had the exact same amount of control seized by a foreign army, and were invited as a conquered nation through a Vichy leadership to partake in the ceremonious electing of representatives to send off to a centralised legislature people who would act as rubber stamp to laws scribed by the totalitarianists who deemed we all must live under the same rule; would we not then accept the only course of action would be to astatine completely from the process itself? So, why are we not actively seeking to disengage ourselves?
There is not a single piece of law or action that the EU has desired that has not eventually been brought it by some manner when opposition has been fronted. The inability to point to a single thing the EU elite has wanted, that they have not got, eventually, proves that the whole regime is rooted to a totalitarianistic agenda, and staffed by despots.
So sorry to UKIP, The Conservatives, and Jury Team who have had my vote in recent years. Though of course your names will not be on the paper, as that is now forbidden as we must elect by EU Groupings rather that by national party (to encourage the groupings to move towards being more Political Party like in a pan-EU sense). I shall make the effort to go to the ballot box in 2014, but I shall be writing upon my paper that I do not recognise the election, nor do I consent to be governed by any other Legislature other than the UK Parliament.
I write this of course in the hope that it will stir some mass call for people to do the same, which I doubt is going to happen, but my mind is made up and I hope others give this some thought too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)