Potential Labour Candidate for Hyndburn

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by Neil

I have said before I don't agree with you on that one. You should take what you are entitled too. If many other Councillors took your stance those that can't afford to not take the money may not put themselves forward for election fearing they would be looked on badly for claiming. We have the expenses system so anyone can be a Councillor.

I think there is a fine line between claiming reasonable expenses and claiming additional unnecessary expenses. To avoid being accused of any additional unnecessary expenses, some Councillors including Graham, err on the side of caution and only claim the minimum that they feel that they need. I think this is very commendable.

I don't think that people should always take 'what they are entitled too' - this is where the ridiculous claims came from as they were 'entitled' albeit be a flawed system, to claim for ridiculous items.

Every councillor should make a point of claiming what they feel they need and not just 'what they can' because they can.

[g jones]

On Tealeafs point, I live in a terraced house so clear problems there constructing a moat. LOL

on expenses. Neil your right. However before it became a hot potato many Councillor could not be bothered to claim as it was not why they do/did it. In the MPs case I think that is more than enough compensation and taking another £4k and £11k is unneccessary. I think 64k for MP is enough. I accept for someone like me (works in factory on computers upstairs) it will be a lot but to Lord whoever it may not even
pay for his next Daimler or porch extension especially if he's from Buckinghamshire so it is relative. To me it's relative to the people in Hyndburn.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Gayle

I think there is a fine line between claiming reasonable expenses and claiming additional unnecessary expenses. To avoid being accused of any additional unnecessary expenses, some Councillors including Graham, err on the side of caution and only claim the minimum that they feel that they need. I think this is very commendable.

I don't think that people should always take 'what they are entitled too' - this is where the ridiculous claims came from as they were 'entitled' albeit be a flawed system, to claim for ridiculous items.

Every councillor should make a point of claiming what they feel they need and not just 'what they can' because they can.

Ah but thats just good old fashioned common sense, no wonder andrew can't grasp it.

[Tealeaf]

Originally Posted by g jones

On Tealeafs point, I live in a terraced house so clear problems there constructing a moat. LOL

on expenses. Neil your right. However before it became a hot potato many Councillor could not be bothered to claim as it was not why they do/did it. In the MPs case I think that is more than enough compensation and taking another £4k and £11k is unneccessary. I think 64k for MP is enough. I accept for someone like me (works in factory on computers upstairs) it will be a lot but to Lord whoever it may not even
pay for his next Daimler or porch extension especially if he's from Buckinghamshire so it is relative. To me it's relative to the people in Hyndburn.

The trouble has been, Graham, that the majority of MP's have been claiming far more than £4-£11K...they 'maxed' out on claims by simply adding lump sum amounts for items such as food to whatever they were claiming on second mortages and house fittings up to an amount of £22K pa. All this in addition to items such as first class rail travel, putting family members on the payroll and receiving various payoffs under the guise of consultancy and retainer fees.

MP's are entitled to first class rail travel; an open return from Accy to London is just over four hundred quid. A reasonable one-bedroomed flat in central London will probably set you back a minimum of 300 quid per week. Now, it is not strictly neccessary to travel first class - the Preston/London journey is just over two hours - and by living slightly out you can probably cut your accommodation costs - so my point, once again, is if elected, would you be prepared to place your expenses in the public domain?

[MargaretR]

It would be unreasonable to expect an MP to be martyr and claim for nothing.
What we don't need is the freeloading greed they once showed.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

The trouble has been, Graham, that the majority of MP's have been claiming far more than £4-£11K...they 'maxed' out on claims by simply adding lump sum amounts for items such as food to whatever they were claiming on second mortages and house fittings up to an amount of £22K pa. All this in addition to items such as first class rail travel, putting family members on the payroll and receiving various payoffs under the guise of consultancy and retainer fees.

MP's are entitled to first class rail travel; an open return from Accy to London is just over four hundred quid. A reasonable one-bedroomed flat in central London will probably set you back a minimum of 300 quid per week. Now, it is not strictly neccessary to travel first class - the Preston/London journey is just over two hours - and by living slightly out you can probably cut your accommodation costs - so my point, once again, is if elected, would you be prepared to place your expenses in the public domain?

Now I'm a little confused Aren't all MP's expenses in public domain?

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

so my point, once again, is if elected, would you be prepared to place your expenses in the public domain?

I think that is a little unfair at this point. It is possible that he may not be allowed to do this or it may be a requirement to do so.

Seeing as Graham has always been open about such things I would suspect he would if he was allowed to do so.

[Tealeaf]

Originally Posted by Eric

Now I'm a little confused Aren't all MP's expenses in public domain?

They are now.....but not because they placed them there. It was all due to investigative journalism and some pretty ****ed off employees in the MP's expenses office. But those expenses are still historic. What people want to see is what their representatives are claiming on an ongoing basis - or at least I do.

Graham Jones is going to be fighting a difficult election come May of next year - or possibly even earlier. While I have no truck with PM Brown, I only see the Tories as being as bad...but then that is the government. The important thing for Hyndburn is that the Borough has a good local guy in the legislature and it is unlikely the Conservatives will come up with a better local name

The electorate has fallen out of love with all political parties - not least because of the expenses scandal -and so all I am suggesting to GJ is that if he does want to pick up those extra votes to win the constituency he should make a transparency commitment on his expenses.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

They are now.....but not because they placed them there. It was all due to investigative journalism and some pretty ****ed off employees in the MP's expenses office. But those expenses are still historic. What people want to see is what their representatives are claiming on an ongoing basis - or at least I do.

Graham Jones is going to be fighting a difficult election come May of next year - or possibly even earlier. While I have no truck with PM Brown, I only see the Tories as being as bad...but then that is the government. The important thing for Hyndburn is that the Borough has a good local guy in the legislature and it is unlikely the Conservatives will come up with a better local name

The electorate has fallen out of love with all political parties - not least because of the expenses scandal -and so all I am suggesting to GJ is that if he does want to pick up those extra votes to win the constituency he should make a transparency commitment on his expenses.

that is a reasonable comment IMHO. n summat i agree wi entirely, such a commitment would in my view really gain quite a few extra votes, n pee off P.B. n Andrew,

[g jones]

I don't see many problems publishing expenses. I know names were omitted so when Mark Hendricks brought his researcher from London to Preston second class staying in Travelodge it showed as Mark Hendricks 'claimed for a kit kat' and 'Mark Hendricks booked in a Travelodge in his own constituency' when it was in fact scrubbed out it was his researcher - probably on near minimum wage or low anyway.

It's no problem to me. I think people recognise it is a huge responsibility and both personal and staff allowances are neccessary.

[Tealeaf]

Originally Posted by g jones

I don't see many problems publishing expenses. I know names were omitted so when Mark Hendricks brought his researcher from London to Preston second class staying in Travelodge it showed as Mark Hendricks 'claimed for a kit kat' and 'Mark Hendricks booked in a Travelodge in his own constituency' when it was in fact scrubbed out it was his researcher - probably on near minimum wage or low anyway.

It's no problem to me. I think people recognise it is a huge responsibility and both personal and staff allowances are neccessary.

I don't think anyone would disagree that an MP needs secretarial and research assistance. It is when and if such assistance is given by friends and family that is the problem. Should you be elected, Graham, it is will be to the Palace of Westminster - not Nigeria-on-Thames, as it has lately become. So can you or can you not give a commitment to the following:

• No Silly expenses
• Publish your expenses on a monthly basis
• No family or chums on the public payroll

Yes or no to all of these?

Oh, and buggar what Labour HQ may have to say.

[Gayle]

I agree with the first two points, Tealeaf, and sort of agree with the third.

However, if the MP's spouse has been tireless in campaigning, is a good secretary and organiser and applies for the job and gets the job, then there should be no reason why they aren't on the payroll. I agree there are a lot of freeloaders who put their wives and husbands on the payroll, but equally there are a lot of hard working spouses.

As long as the process for them getting the job is transparent, then I think there should be some leeway. Also, MP's hours are long - some MPs barely see their family, working side by side is perhaps one way of over coming that. Less risk of affairs, more vested interest in doing the job right, working together for a common goal etc.

There are many husband and wife teams out in industry who work well together.

So put in the measures to avoid freeloaders but equally ensure that the right people are doing the job.

[g jones]

I agree Tealeaf with Gayle, 1 & 2. I don't have much family as such so 3 is unlikely. However I have said to the current staff if like them to stay on. They have done a great job for Hyndburn and should continue to.

[Eric]

Talking of expenses: I have assumed that you guys have an Auditor General, or something like that, who has access to all govt. documents relating to expenditures. But Tealeaf's comment about "investigative journalism" seems to suggest that there is no Auditor General who issues an annual report on how well govt. is handling public money. I'm confused.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I don't think it's a bad thing that somebody has raised the issue of taxpayers paying for needless by-elections.

Didn't you go and lick envelopes for Conservative M.P. David 'Dickie' Davis, after he'd thrown his political dummy out of his pram, and caused a needless by-election, costing us all an estimated £200,000.00?

David Davis by-election 'will cost taxpayers £200,000' - Telegraph