How much does a political website cost ? More than £3000 ?

I note from the publishing of parliamentary expenses that my local MP has charged to taxpayers £3167.67 in respect of his website. The money was paid to a company called ButterMountain who seem (from their website) to exclusively do websites for Conservatives.

It strikes me that this is hellishly expensive, especially when compared to the rates Lib Dems can get from a company that offers a similar service to Lib Dem MPs and councillors.

The interesting thing about the company "Butter Mountain" is that they are very difficult to get information about. They have a basic website that gives no address or fees or explanation as to who the firm actually is, but what is clear, from Tory expenses returns, is that they do seem to charge a very high end price for a product which to me, appears is no better than other providers offer for much less.

Perhaps the parliamentary authorities should not just be publishing expenses claims, but also ensuring that MPs are getting best value and not giving too much money to companies that could appear to be charging a premium rate for a fairly standard product.

Accused MPs to get "Golden Payoffs"

Ludicrous as it may seem, the three Labour MPs who face criminal charges over their expense claims, are entitled to "Golden Payoffs" when standing down from parlimanent this year.

These payments which could total £65,000 are paid to MPs, depending on the length of their service, when standing down at an election, but since Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine will not have gone to court, there are no powers to stop them getting the money.

It does seem absolultey ridiculous that MPs get so many benefits when so many hard working honest people are losing their jobs with minimal payments.

Which Norfolk MPs will have to repay the taxpayer their expenses ?

The list of those MPs who have to repay expenses was published yesterday (Thursday), and it brought good news for some MPs, but not for others.

Lib Dem MP Norman Lamb has nothing to repay, having made no false claims, and he is joined by Richard Bacon (Tory MP for South Norfolk), Henry Bellingham (Tory MP for NW Norfolk), and Tony Wright (Labour MP for Great Yarmouth). Charles Clarke (Labour MP for Norwich South) won an appeal so will not now be asked for a repayment of any monies after initially being told to repay £743.

Those MPs investigated who have money to repay include Ian Gibson (who already stood down as MP for Norwich North), Christopher Fraser (Tory MP for SW Norfolk) and would be MP for my part of the world, Keith Simpson (Conservative MP for Mid Norfolk and Tory candidate for Broadland).

One now only wonders what the voters will make of these MPs. No doubt those MPs who ahve done nothing wrong will also have to put up with voter derision despite their innocence. Voters have every right to be angry, but lets aim our anger at the right targets.

Question - What is the designation of an MPs first home ?

Please send your comments in on this simple question.

Should an MP have their first home in the part of the world they represent in parliament (not necessarily in the constituency, but locally) or should their first home be in London (if they are not a London MP).

Then the logical second question is, is your first home where your children go to school ?

Please comment and let me know your views.

Opportunity wasted

It struck me yesterday morning that Nick Clegg could really have stolen the thunder of Cameron by making an early statement to the effect that any Lib Dem MP not willing to pay back money owed would be deselected and have the whip withdrawn.

I note this morning that Cameron has said words to this effect.

A missed opportunity by Clegg.

Alan Duncan

Coming to the issue of Alan Duncan late due to my broadband router breaking on Monday (it had lasted five years being on 24/7 which must be some kind of record), I am slightly bemused as to the goings on around Alan Duncan.

Presumably he had done something wrong, so I assumed wrongly he had been sacked. But no. He has still retained a job as a shadow minister. How odd. Is David Cameron saying Alan Duncan was only partly wrong ? Is he saying he wasn't really wrong at all or is it simply a case that friends of Cameron, be they involved in scandals or fiddling expenses or other errors of judgement are allowed to stay close to power whilst the older Tories who resist Cameron's agenda are told to stand down ?

How many chances will Alan Duncan be given by Cameron ?

Before the expenses scandal really got a head of steam, Alan Duncan, when answering criticisms from Ian Hislop on Have I Got News For You described his ability to claim for a second home even though he own half a dozen homes as "wonderful". He later described this as a joke, in poor taste, and he apologised.

Now we read that Alan Duncan has described the MPs salary of £60k as having to "live on rations". Again, Alan Duncan has apologised unreservedly.

Now what will Cameron do ? Come on Dave, show some backbone.

I don't begrudge John Bercow making his accomodation child friendly but ...

My initial reaction when I read earlier that the new speaker, John Bercow, has ordered £20,000 worth of alterations and refurbishments to his quarters was slight shock. Then I read that it was in order to make the accommodation more child friendly, and I thought it wasn't so bad. Then, however, reading the details I changed back to my initial reaction.

According to The Times he is spending money on making the place safe and having ducts checked to ensure his children will come to no harm, but I was shocked to read

"A further £3,880 has been spent on planters on the terrace to make it safer for the children.
The drawing room will get a new sofa and cushions for the window seat, costing £7,524.30.

Are these planters manufactured by Rolls Royce ? This is a ludicrous price and I could but planters from Homebase for considerably less.

But the real extravagance comes in his choice of sofas and cushions. To spend £7524.30 on a sofas and cushions shows a real ability to spend money without a care or concern for those paying for it.

Yes, I know it is less that Michael Martin spent, but then again Premiership footballers spend less on their mock mansions than Mr Martin spent, but I would have expected Mr Bercow to show a little more restraint.

Independents on ego trips

In the wake of the expenses scandal, there were a number of people putting their names forward or had others putting their names forward as strong independent candidates who would work to kick out those who have abused the system. Amongst this group was Esther Rantzen.

Ms Rantzen said that if Margaret Moran , the Labour MP for Luton South, did not stand down, she would stand against her. All well and good. After all, if Ms Rantzen is dedicated to cleaning up politics she would be a formidable opponents of anyone who had abused the system. The problem is that Margaret Moran will be standing down, but Ms Rantzen insists she is still standing.

So who is Ms Rantzen opposing now ? If she is standing to oppose the abuse of expenses, then all her opponents in the election, those representing the Lib Dems, Tories and Labour are all clean, with no guilt associated with them as regards expenses. So what does she hope to gain ?

In my opinion it is more to do with ego than principle. Ms Rantzen is only famous in recent years for appearing on a reality show which attempted to find her a date, appearing on another celebrity reality show in "I'm a Celebrity", been rolled out as another celeb on "Who do you think you are" then doing a one off special on "political correctness" on ITV which spoke volumes about her lack of knowledge of politics, education and the law. In essence she has used up all her celebrity appearances.

It must be difficult for someone deprived of publicity for so long to suddenly be in the spotlight again and not want to let it go. But if Esther Rantzen genuinely believes that she can clean up politics, why isn't she standing against one of the dozens of MPs who have done wrong and are not resigning ?

For Esther read Ego.

"Flipping" George Osborne saves £55000 in tax

The man who wants to be the man in charge of the country's tax at after the next general election is accused by the lib Dems today of "flipping" his second home in order to save £55k in tax.

The link to the story is HERE.

If true, it means David Cameron will have to show whether his newly found conversion to open government and decency amongst Tory MPs is confined only to the old guard and those Tories he does not get on with or whether it extends to his inner circle.

Christopher Fraser ? Who ? I've never heard of you !

I wrote some months ago about the invisible man of Norfolk politics, Christopher Fraser, MP for South West Norfolk.

This man lost his previous seat to the Lib Dems in Poole back in 2001, but despite this, South West Norfolk Tories chose him ahead of an array of better qualified and often local people with an armful of credentials to be a decent local MP. Having been selected as the Tory candidate, he then refused to take part in public meetings during the election and is notable for his unwillingness to be contacted. The Eastern Daily Press have reported on an almost daily basis how he refuses to return calls.

Now, in the wake of allegations that the taxpayer was forced to pay out for shrubbery to go around his garden in South West Norfolk. The EDP reported today that locals in the village in which he owns a house were largely unaware that he lived there, indeed the paper also reported that many people believe he spends me time in his Dorset home than he does in Norfolk. Quite how his home in Norfolk qualified as a second home when it appears actually to be his third time is something of a mystery.

Well now it does not matter because he has gone. He will not stand again. Will the people of South West Norfolk be pleased ? Will they know ? After all, he was only notable by his complete invisibility as a local MP. To be honest in the rock solid Tory seat where a dog with a blue rosette on could get itself elected, a dog with a blue rosette on might be better known and could, in my opinion, do a better job !

Is Cameron's hollow level of concern about Tory MPs expenses going to be exposed by Kirkbride ?

A few days ago David Cameron made it clear that Andrew MacKay should step down for making a claim on a second home in London. In many ways you might argue that the MP for Bracknell ought to have his first home in his constituency and his second home in London. After all, your main residence shouldn't be the home you spend least time at.

So the question is , why is Cameron standing by Mr MacKay's wife and fellow Tory MP Julie Kirkbride. Her list of things that voters would find offensive is longer than those of her husband.

1) I cannot imagine that she did not know of her husband's arrangements for claiming his second home allowance. Am I really to believe that she was not an accomplice to his guilt ?

2) She claims her second home is in Bromsgrove (her constituency). Yet this is the home she had her family in. Surely, if her children and family are there, this is her first home not her second home ? Surely this is just a scam so she can claim on her Bromsgrove home which conveniently left her husband to claim on their London home ?

3) Why are taxpayers paying for her brther to live in her second home rent free ?

4) Why did she increase her mortgage by £50,000, which the taxpayers footed the bill for so her son could have his own room when her brother gets his own room rent free ?

5) Why does Julie Kirkbride's sister get paid as a member of her staff whilst living more than 100 miles from Bromsgrove ?

6) Why did her husband have the guts to face voters before agreeing to stand down but Ms Kirkbride refuses to do so despite David Cameron insisting she does ?

This is the real test for David Cameron. He talks of change (which is far from radical in terms of what real change could offer) but if he does nothing about Ms Kirkbride he will shown to be a hollow man who speaks but fails to act.

Telegraph Expense Allegations - The New Bar Charts

On the ground in Norwich North

In the wake of the allegations against Ian Gibson, Labour MP for Norwich North, I thought it would be interesting to share with you comments that I have heard from constituents of Dr Gibson since the news became public.

I work in the heart of Dr Gibson's constituency and live on the edge of it and many of my work colleagues form part of his core electorate, and the reaction from them was akin to being let down by a trusted friend. Ian Gibson has been able to position himself in recent years not just as a Labour MP, but also as the anti establishment champion of local people and it is those people who felt that Labour had let them down buy Ian Gibson hadn't who feel most upset.

"I vote for him because he seemed like one of us and not one of them", said one colleague.

"Of all the MPs I never expected him to do this", said another.

But summing it all up for me was one colleague who said "I don't like Labour but I would have voted for him, but not now".

If you had asked me a week ago if I thought Ian Gibson would be named by The Telegraph, I would have said it was highly unlikely. Sadly, and I mean this genuinely as a Lib Dem and constituent of his, I feel what has happened is a great shame. Ian Gibson is that rare thing, an MP who does a good job of nursing his constituency who transcends political bias and draws his support from people who are actually bitterly opposed to the political party they represent.

Should he go ? Probably yes. Is it a shame ? Yes, I think it is.

Bar Chart Time

Update - This is intended to be slightly tongue in cheek. For all those who take it seriously and want to do % instead, I could ahve done this for MPs being accused of serious expenses fiddles (flipping, etc), and as I read it not one Lib Dem has "flipped" his or her second home. Indeed one Lib Dem MP is accused of getting Sky TV, which to me does not seem like an offence at all.

Quote of the year from disgraced Tory MP Andrew MacKay

On Radio Five Live at about 5.15 this evening they were interviewing a reporter from Andrew MacKay's constituency regarding his somewhat dodgy second home expenses. The reporter told Five Live that they spoke to Mr MacKay yesterday before the Telegraph printed its allegations to him and before any stories about him were known, and Mr MacKay told them words to the effect of

"I have checked all my expenses claims fore the last four years and am sure I have done nothing wrong".

But perhaps worse is the fact that he claims to have checked his expenses and he saw nothing wrong in what he did. Doesn' this say something about his judgement ?

Michael Martin sickens me

Listening to "Mr Speaker", Michael Martin, during the commons debate on expense today was absolutely sickening.

Mr Martin, a man not averse to taking full advantage of the expenses system and perhaps, in some eyes, being seen as just as bad as those MPs now caught out by The Telegraph, decided to launch a fierce verbal attack on Labour MP Kate Hoey and Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, both long time campaigners for greater exposure of MPs expenses.

What made Mr Martin's responses to Ms Hoey and Mr Baker was the way he chose to lecture other MPs about their conduct but then criticised personally Kate Hoey for going on Sky news to talk about the expenses issue and accused Mr Baker of giving the press "exactly what they wanted to hear".

This is the same Mr Speaker who refused the advice of his own legal advisers and spent extra tax payers money seeking a second legal opinion on whether he could challenge previous attempts to allow public scrutiny of MPs expenses. He is also the same person who now six months after he was ordered to reveal the full details, has still failed to do so.

To call in the police to deal with the whistle blower rather than to ask the police to investigate possible fraud by MPs shows just how out of touch Mr Martin is.

The problems with parliament and expenses start with the systems within parliament, and Mr Martin, it appears to me, is more concerned with defending these indefensible systems and not with ensuring parliament is relevant and trusted by the electorate.

"I was working within the rules"

Everyone now knows that the rules concerning parliamentary expenses for MP were perverse, yet the constant flow of MPs claiming "I worked within the rules" seems totally at odds with everyone elses moral compass.

We all know now that MPs were working withing the rules, but we are all concerned that so many MPs lacked the common sense and decency to see that their expenses claim were totally indefensible to the electorate.

No wonder we have been told for many years that out MPs are the least corrupt in world because there was no need for overt corruption when there was a legal method for them to be corrupt.

It's Sunday so it must be another Labour Minister's Expense scam

You know it's a Sunday because there is another revelation about a Labour Minister on the take by claiming expenses for things that might be okay by parliamentary rules, but to the ordinary common man in the street seem like a total scam.

Today's it's Geoff Hoon. Do we do a sweep stake on who it will be next week ?

Throwing the baby out with the bath water

Why is it that because a few bad MPs have bent and twisted the second home allowance in order to pocket vast sums of cash that other MPs who have not been corrupt and live in rural constituencies some distance from the Westminster will miss out in the future ?

It strikes me that there must be many MPs who do their work in Westminster much better because they do have a small place of their own to store suits, fresh clothes and even a small desk to get some work done, things that are not always possible of MPs are to be asked in future to use hotels to stay overnight.

Simply clearing up the system and making better rules that work seems a far better option.