Goldsmith vs Snow

Nothing changes in Westminster. First to go was a LibDem for wrongly claiming expenses and now Zac Goldsmith is accused of overspending in his election campaign.


Despite David Laws saying that he had not benefited financially from claiming £40k for rent to live with his partner it is difficult to see how this can be true. Of course Cameron and Clegg described his actions as honourable and with dignity...

Goldsmith's claim that his garden boards were almost entirely used for local election campaigns is beyond bizarre and his defence that it is within the rules puts MPs right back where they were at the height of the expenses scandal last year.

Garden boards with large letters shouting 'Zac Goldsmith' and 'Vote Conservative' plus a picture of Zac are hardly backing a local election campaign. Spending £2800 on the boards and then putting a return in which says that just £262 relates to the general election campaign is simply wrong. Even if this is allowed within the rules somehow (and the suggestion from the Electoral Commission is that it is not), it is still cheating.

The spending limits are there for good reason - to stop millionairres buying themselves parliamentary seats. Zac Goldsmith is worth £200m.

The interview with Jon Snow is here and the expenses return is here. Goldsmith refuses to answer Snow's questions and clearly has much to answer for.

Telegraph gets teeth into Widdecombe

The Torygraph have finally got their teeth into Ann Widdecombe:

"The Conservative MP, one of the leading contenders to become Speaker, was sent thousands of articles in which she was named over a four-year period at a cost of 75p each, with deliveries on an almost daily basis."

The bizarre thing is that knowing what the media are writing about you seems to be a reasonable thing to do, I think. It might have saved the taxpayer money if she had used Google alerts (although I'm not sure these were around in 2004), but I don't have much of a problem with this expense.

Why the Telegraph didn't question her voting record on expenses transparency is beyond me though. How can anyone who has voted against making expenses explicit and public put themselves forward as a speaker candidate?

They have also failed to mention the gardening claims that Ann has submitted. While they are not huge, I can't see why taxpayers should have to pay for these. If MPs want the state to pay for a second home then they should choose a small flat.

The same goes for cleaning. Sure, I don't expect MPs to do all their own cleaning if they are working 15 hour days but why should the state pay? This has nothing to do with a second home, they would still need to clean if they lived in one home rather than 2, they certainly would be making more mess by living in two???

Poverty and expenses - Labour's record

The real state of Britain today rarely makes headlines. The Guardian has just run a story about the increasing poverty gap in this country showing that the poverty gap is greater now than at any point since records began in the 1960's. Most concerning is child poverty...

From the Guardian: "About 15% of pupils in state schools are now entitled to free school meals because their parents receive welfare payments or earn below £15,575 a year, the figures show. Last year, 14.5% of pupils were eligible."

Trying to survive on less than £16k as a family is extremely tough and, frankly, I simply don't know how I could do it. Labour's spin about tax credits is being shown to be just that, what we need is a non-means tested citizen's income coupled with redistributive taxes (personally I favour a maximum wage too!).

Yesterday I watched a government ad / info piece on how they are cracking down on benefit fraudsters. While it is all very well them to want to crack down on people defrauding the system, as the poverty gap grows what do they expect people to do, tug their forelocks? I'm not condoning fraud, but Labour need to understand people's needs and stop pandering to the rich.

They should also remember that former Work and Pensions Secretary, James Purnell who resigned last week, claimed £25o on fridge magnets. £250 is about the same as a month's dole money.

Those in power need to have an insight into what it means to live in today's world. When I get elected to parliament I intend to take the national average wage. That is not to say that I don't think the job is important and should attract a reasonable wage, just that I think that the average wage should be reasonable and liveable.

Reforming politics

This piece is the Guardian is a ray of hope from the parliamentary debacle of the past few weeks. Constitutional reform was needed 200 years ago and and is as pressing now as could ever be. Let us hope that Brown takes this as an opportunity to make radical changes.

Sadly I doubt that he has either the time or the will to bring in proper reform and I guess that he will suggest another fudge.

My top 5 reforms:

1. Proportional representation at all levels of government (I almost don't mind what type but the way that the London and Scottish elections are run seems to work).
2. Elected upper house. Possibly the most bizarre aspect of a government that calls itself democratic is to have parliamentarians who are not elected.
3. Cap on donations and / or public funding of parties with sufficient support
4. 'Digs' for MPs who need to stay over night in London, not second homes.
5. Constituents decide on pay for their MP??? The concept that MPs cannot afford to live on four times the minimum wage is just pathetic.

I am happy that MP's get work related expenses covered (most employers should do this anyway), but to suggest that ordinary people might be kept out of politics if salaries are £65k plus second home is frankly obscene. If an MP can't get by easily on half of that then they clearly have little understanding to how most people have to live.

Expenses pledge

The most sickening aspect of the whole expenses affair is that these appallingly greedy MPs would still be claiming for dog food, nappies, various homes etc. if they hadn't been caught. It is no good them apologising, the public wants immediate change and an that means an election. They should stand down now and repay the money.

If I get elected I will make any expenses that I claim public. I will be held to account for them and they will be open to full scrutiny. If I get elected, the electorate will be my employer and therefore you would be entitled to know what I will be doing and claiming.

However, if I'm not elected soon and get a new job some distance away where I have to stay during the week, I won't be asking my employer to pay for the flat, a cleaner, my travel to work, dog food or women's dresses. I will be buying these myself from my salary (except the last two items as I don't have a dog and don't wear many dresses). Any normal person would take this approach. Let elect some normal people to parliament and kick out those with snouts in the trough.

Gotta pick a pocket or two?

Wonderful thought below from the great Beau Bo D'Or on MP's expenses. I say scrap the second home scheme and provide MP digs for MPs to use. There was a report that an MP claimed £800 for a TV, my TV cost £30 a few years back (secondhand) - it is not plasma or flatscreen, but so what?

Anyway, enjoy!

MPs expenses in Kent

Letter to the Kent Messenger in response to their piece on MP's expenses this week. This is the link to how the Maidstone MP voted on allowances last year.

Dear Editor,

It was good to read that Ms Widdecombe is one of the lower claimants for MPs expenses in Kent, especially as she voted against MPs expenses being made public last year.

The whole system of expenses is a mess, as almost everyone agrees, and the mess has clearly been driven by a desire to mask pay rises. As someone who commutes to London from time to time, there is simply no need for any MP in West Kent to claim a second home allowance. Although the train service from Maidstone is not great it is certainly easy to get to and from Westminster in a reasonable time.

We urgently need transparency for MPs expenses. These people hold immense power and can only be accountable to the electorate if we know what they are getting up to! It is no wonder people are disenfranchised when they are kept in the dark by politicians.