Beyond Angry

I am too mad for words to put anything down about Jacqui Smith so I am going to go and find somewhere quiet and shaded and have a lie down.

Meanwhile, show some support now, for someone who may be a national hero come next May or June, go visit Karen Lumley's website.  She is running against the criminal Smith in Redditch.  Her ConservativeHome diary is HERE.

I can not wait until election night, when this corrupt regime is finally ousted.

Another year, another £85m

Seems Jacqui Smith has decided not to resign over the "Wankergate", or as I may start referring to it, "Masturgate" scandal.

I said yesterday that she should be sacked, not allowed to resign; but, maybe she should be sacked now seeing as it is clear that she would rather drag the dignity of her post through the mud rather than give up her £22,948 house top up payments, the £20,694 on her office and stationery, or the £92,587 that she is granted to pay for a staff, (£40,000 of which ends up in hubby Richards pocket).

All in all, Ms. Smith Claimed £145,331 in additional payments in the 2007/8 payments. A drop in the ocean of the combined £86.7m claimed in total (£55.3m are listed as "staffing costs"). But the £145,331 is on top of a salary of £141,866. (As per the stats published here, by Guido). She is still claiming on her house in Redditch while that lovely grace and favour house sits empty.

Journalists are just going to follow her and Brown around the G20 asking Gordon Brown if she is going to resign or if he is going to sack her. Jacqui Smith will never be allowed to get passed this and it is going to get in the way of her being taken seriously in the role of Home Secretary. I wonder if President Obama asked weigh in with an opinion? I guess Hilary will not be asked in case it opens up old wounds. Maybe Obama will give her a gift basket of DVD's her and Dicky to enjoy, that will save us taxpayers a few quid, and at least he knows the Smith family are movie fans.

Wankergate

In response to this story in the Mail on Sunday, I would like to add my voice to those demanding that Jacqui Smith be sacked. Not allowed to resign, sacked.

The payment of expenses for her husband Richard Timney to be her Commons Assistant needs to be investigated, starting with checking how many times he has been to the Commons in the capacity of that role, and ending with deciphering who is actually submitting Jacqui Smith expenses and by what criteria items were and were not submitted. Any improper payments should be immediately paid back.

A successor Home Secretary will be able to immediately move into the vacant grace and favour home already being subsidised by the tax payer, which has been left empty while the Home Secretary lodges with her sister.

David Cameron would, in my opinion be well advised to conscript a liked backbencher to draw up proposals to be implemented with immediate effect of a Conservative government coming to power, those guidelines should be published immediately. David Davis, Doug Carswell, Bill Cash are all good names for such a task.

Somebody In No.10 Knowingly Lied To Parliament And The Public

Frasier Nelson has a scoop here.

In December the Government released some misleading knife crime figures. In an email trail Dr Matt Cavanagh emails the ONS telling them of the line that the Government would like to use. The statistics that were released by the government were knowingly inaccurate.

"Here is the statement that the PM would like us to publish tomorrow as part of the knife crime announcement"

The ONS replied and were very clear. The statistics should not be used and the reasons cited are that they were,

"potentially inaccurate and may possibly give the wrong impression"

The emails continue to go back and forth but the ONS were told,

"I have also been informed that Number 10 are adamant about the need to publish this statistic. As a result, I have been informed that they are likely to publish the data irrespective of the concerns raised"

In a December press release The Home Office announced that there had been a 27% fall in stab wound hospital admissions. They also claimed,

"fewer teenagers carrying knives, fewer young people carrying knives, fewer offenders getting off with a caution, more people going to prison".

When asked repeatedly for the raw data behind these announcements, the Home Office would only ever say that they would be published in due course.

The nett result is that the Home Office and Number 10 used selective statistics and deliberately ignored proper checks so as to manipulate a political advantage. They did so with numbers involving violent crime amongst people they are supposed to be representing. In fact, as Frasier points out it is so Gordon Brown could attend a photo-call with the relatives of the victims of knife crime.

People within those statistics died, but the Government decided it was more important that they lie to look good, and make political gain. This, rather than acknowledge the real extent of a very serious problem that is happening whilst they control the levers of power.

The statistics when released actually showed an overall rise in knife crimes. Is there a single minister or department left within HM Government that isn't lying to or cheating money from the tax payer? I can't think of one.

If The System Is Broke, Why Don't We Fix It?

Parliamentary Standards Commissioner has finally decided that there will now be an investigation into Jacqui Smith's expenses. This has only come about because neighbours at the questionable South London residence have spoken up and claimed that the 'Second Home Secretary' was spending two to three nights a week there, and not every week of the year.

I won't hold my breath, but at least due process is finally in effect.

It is worth remembering that there is a so called grace and favour house that is in place and would have been free for Jacqui Smith to use in her position as Home Secretary. But in doing what she has done, she has claimed £116k from the Tax Payer to put towards her "other" home in Redditch.

My question is this. Clearly the system is broken, so why is there not a clear and deafening call to clean up the rules and wipe the slate from after the next General Election? Any wrong doing should still of course still need to be investigated, and punished. But surely we should draw a line in the sand AND get the reform that is desperately needed. Such abuses, in the public mind at least warrant a prison term. Not a slap on the wrist.

Second Question, who amongst the Conservative ranks do we trust to draw up the new rules? My vote, Mr Carswell.

One For The Future

Remember the name Karen Lumley. According to UK Polling Report here, Karen is running as the Conservative candidate against Jacqui Smith in Redditch.

Karen's Website is here, and if you want to email your support, you can at karen@tellkaren.com.

I now look forward to the General Election for a new reason. It will be Jacqui Smith who will give us a "Portillo moment" [to be re-dubbed a "Smith Moment."] Watching Jacqui Smith getting booted unceremoniously out of office will probably bring the biggest cheer of the night. The fact is, for all the money she has taken, and despite her contempt for the electorate and the tax payer, there is absolutely no getting out of having to stand before the returning officer and facing the person that has beat you.

I can't wait.

Smiths downfall will be the symbolic moment of the election that will haunt the Labour Party for many years to follow.

The moment that sticks in my mind from the 2005 election, and i think will stay with me forever was when George Galloway delivered his "Tony Blair.................This...Is for Iraq" Speech. I hope Karen's team have something suitable apt lined up.

Who Is Backing Gordon Brown?

Gordon Brown Quotes:

"at root our economy is better placed to weather the global storm than it was in
the seventies, the eighties and the nineties". – To North West of England
Business Leaders (see here.)

"It's a financial global recession everybody knows and started out of America,
we are having to deal with the fall out. We are better placed in Britain than we
have been in the past and are better placed that many other countries" – BBC
Interview (See here)

So, do people share your views Gordon?.....

What about Ed Balls? Well, let’s look at who he is first. He worked for the Financial Times as an economic leader writer (1990 – 1994), before going on to work for Gordon Brown in 1994 in the then Shadow Cabinet. After Labour won the 1997 election he worked for the then Chancellor (again, one Gordon Brown) in a position called “Chief Economic Advisor” where he allegedly earned the title “The most powerful unelected man in Britain”.

It would be fair to say then, that Ed Balls is intimate with Gordon Brown, familiar with the internal workings of the treasury department, the Government and of the national economic position.

Last night, Ed Ball told a Labour conference that these were "seismic events that are going to change the political landscape". He also said the current economic situation is "more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s" (See here.)

Oh dear. That doesn’t sound very supportive of Mr Brown or this Labour Governments official position.

Ok, well let’s look at someone else then… how about Nikolas Sarkozy. Well again let’s look at who he is. He is the democratically elected President of France (means he won an election of the whole country, Gordon may not be familiar with this concept).

Any way, what did Mr Sarkozy have to say on Gordon Browns Economic competence? Surely as a European leader, he will look at what Gordon brown was quick to do, and follow his leadership.

"The British chose a recovery plan by boosting consumer spending, notably by
cutting VAT by two per cent. It is plain to see that it has brought absolutely
no progress. "

Doesn’t sound very supportive, maybe we should look at what else he said…

"The reason is simple: because it's in people's heads. If the consumer no
longer consumes, he won't change just because we add or subtract one VAT point,
it's because he's scared for his future, he's scared for his job and says to
himself: 'I must save, because bad times are coming'.

"In France, we chose investment because when we put France into debt by
taking money to invest, in return we have assets, infrastructure. When you put
your country into debt to pay for operating costs, you have nothing in return
for your debt and you ruin the country.

"If the English did that it's because they don't have any industry
left. Gordon Brown cannot do what I am doing with carmakers [giving them up to 6
billion euros]... in construction and other industries, because they haven't got
any left."

Oh dear. Well let’s look at the IMF then. They have effective control on the world’s supply of money, they must recognise that “Gordon Brown has not only saved the world….” Ooops, he didn’t mean to say that did he.

Anyway, the IMF know what they are talking about, they must agree that the UK is well positioned economically. They have a report here. Oh, I forgot, they placed the UK at the very bottom in their outlook of developed nations, and are predicting that the UK economy will shrink by 2.8% in 2009.

Ok, maybe these are too specific. How about House owners?

No, wait, house prices have fallen an average of £22,000 per house hold in the last year or so.
What about the Unions? They love Labour Prime Ministers.

Hmm, forgot, they though when Gordon Brown said “British Jobs for British Workers” he was going to do that. He didn’t thell them that the EU won’t let him.

Labour voters?

Well, admittedly they might be hard to find now, as only 28% of the electorate is considering voting for Labour.

Polly? Getting mixed signals from Pol. Best not disturb her today; she is getting a bit of a kicking today from her readers.

My Blogs readers… No, wait, this is getting embarrassing… I almost forgot, but 92% of them want Brown to resign.

What about Gordon Browns Cabinet, they must support him and his claims on the economy…

Let’s see, The Foreign Secretary? No, that’s David Miliband, he was going to run a campaign against Gordon Brown Last year. Nobody, not even Gordon Brown thinks David Miliband trusts Grodon Brown.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary? Well she is supportive, but then again she is making massive amounts of money from the position Gordon put her in, she would have to back him, he is probably keeping a public enquiry from her door.

Jack Straw? haven’t heard from him in a while… hmmm, wonder where the Justice Secretary is?

Ed Balls? No, done that one already.

Labour MP’s. They will of course support their leader. They have to, it’s their job to, and they wouldn’t want to make dear Gordon cry again. Come to think of it, a lot of them will be out of a job soon, they are probably less happy..

I t seems I may am struggling to find a credible example of somebody who will back Gordon Brown’s economic policies, and actually for him to remain as Prime Minister. Is there anybody left that does?

Oh wait of course there is. I forgot, there is the BBC and the EU.

Expenses Row

I am not surprised at all that we have failed to see from our Home Secretary either an apology or a promise to refund the cash she has siphoned off the tax payer. Let's remember, the money she is taking is supposed to fund her second home. The purpose of contributing towards the cost of a second home is to help "ordinary people" who chose to run for Parliament, and are successful. It is intended to redress an imbalance and ensure that the Commons can be filled with, well, commoners. How many MP's do you know of today are there, that fit that bill?

The tax payer also pays for the upkeep of government houses. These houses are funded specifically so that senior members of the government who need to be stationed in London as much as possible can live there. These arenot flats, these are houses so that families can also be present and so staff be they security or domestic can also be accomodated. The cost is covered by the tax payer so that the Cabinet member again does not need to consider the costs that may otherwise be unaffordable to an "ordinary person".

These houses and expense benefits are supposed to be in place so that we can have a government and Parliament that best represents and best serves it's people.

If Jacqui Smith has not broken any rules, and from where I am looking, she has broken the rules; we need to have a very big look at all parliamentary expenses. It is surely not acceptable that the Home Secretary forgoes the already expensive, already paid for ministerial house so she can lodge with a family member and then draw further expenses from us tax payers to pay for her constituency home. If Jacqui Smith is only spending 3 nights a week at her sisters home, then she is spending 4 nights at her Redditch home and as such this can not be a second home as defined by the rules.

It used to be that MPs were accountable to The House for their actions, I wonder who it is we are waiting for to act before this can be investigated? I suspect there is a committee or another bloody QUANGO out there somewhere that will eventually be called in to obediently offer their interpretation of the obviously poorly worded rules.

What also of the cost of paying a £40,000 salary to Richard Timney? Mr Timney, despite the name is Jacqui Smiths husband. His job seems to be to write letters to media outlets defending Jacqui Smith; in doing so he neglects to mention his relationship with the Home Secretary. Not really money being spent benefiting the tax payer is it.

Mr Timneys job description is that of "Parliamentary Assistant". Really? how many days does he make it to Parliament then? Perhaps, if he were a "Constituency Assistant" I would be less suspicious. Again, I am sure this will not be investigated, there is probably just enough letter writing and dictation to defy censure.

People are absolutely sick to death of Political double-standards. The expenses system is failing to deliver cost benefits to tax payers, and is too easily defied. What is going on in Westminster that as soon as politicians roll up there they seem determined to claim as much money from us as possible.

If the additional cost of £200,000 for security is added to the alleged £116,000 and £40,000 in salary for a Parliamentary Assistant, who may or may not have been to parliament; the tax payer has afforded The Smith Family £356,000. When the police want a pay rise, or members of the security service, or immigration control or public servants of any of the Home Secretary's remit what is she going to tell them? How, is she going to justify not paying their wage demands, when in her own position she is free to profit so exuberantly? How far would that £356,000 gone in improvements in our schools, our fire stations, our security, our policing? What essential services have been cut so that our Home Secretary can milk the system?

You will not get an unforced apology from the Home Secretary because, I suspect, she personally believes she is entitled to get as much of yours and my money as is possible. The fact that she has voted consistently for legislation to make Parliament less transparent on the one hand, and pocketed stacks of cash in the other is not a contradiction to her. Jacqui Smith's contempt for the tax payer is total, and unapologetic. You will not get an apology and you will not get your money back. Remember that when you go to vote.

A Reminder About Our Home Secretary

To quote TheyWorkforYou.Com, as seen here.....

How Jacqui Smith voted on key issues since 2001:
Voted strongly against a transparent Parliament.

Now there's a surprise!

Home Secretary Is Ripping Off Tax Payers

Just seen this story at Guido's, here.

The Mail on Sunday is reporting that Jacqui Smith has been making allowance claims for a second home in London, which actually belongs to her sister.

It is though the Home Secretary has claimed the maximum claim possible, £24,006 p.a totalling approx £116,000 in allowances against her house in Redditch, where her husband and family live. This is because the Home Secretary has stated that that this is her second property as her main residence is in London. However, as the London house is actually owned by her sister, this is a breach of parliamentary rules and is strictly forbidden as she is effectively lodging at a family members house.

Had the Home Secretary lived in one of the ministerial homes that are made available to ministers, the tax payer may also have been spared and further £200,000 in the cost of additional policing, from when she stays at her sister's property.

It is an astonishing that such a key member of the government could be taking so much money in expenses and be unaware that she was breaching the rules. Mrs Smith, and her finances should be fully investigated and the extent of any impropriety detailed before the House of Commons. And if the evidence confirms a breach of the rules, the necessary, and appropriate discipline should be enforced.

There will no doubt be focus on what role the Home Secretary had within the governments recent attempts to exempt MPs from the Freedom Of Information Act in respect to publishing receipts of expenses. The Government was keen that MPs expenses not be published in any detail. This is a most perfect example of exactly why such rules should never be allowed. Transparency is a necessity is an open democracy. Contempt for accountability, is contempt of the voters.

I look forward to seeing Jacqui Smith on television tomorrow. Undoubtedly this whole incident will not be her fault. I will not be holding my breath that an apology will be forthcoming either. New Labour don't really do resignations on breach of principles (or rules), so we can expect a long drawn out drama on this. One more nail in the coffin of the Labour Party.