Stephen Hodgson

Archive for December, 2009

It would appear that Labour borough and county councillor Jewel Miah started using Wikipedia recently*. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopaedia to which anyone is free to contribute. Unsourced or inaccurate contributions or edits are eventually weeded out by other Wikipedia users or dedicated Wikipedia editors.

Contributions to Wikipedia are governed by a set of rules and guidelines, which, unfortunately, Councillor Miah doesn’t seem to have read. One of the ‘five pillars‘ of Wikipedia is that all articles should have a ‘neutral point of view‘. This fundamental rule prohibits Wikipedia users from engaging in what is known as ‘page blanking‘ – a form of Wikipedia vandalism in which parts of a Wikipedia article are ‘blanked’ (deleted) for the sole purpose of skewing the point of view in an article.

In the space of just half an hour this week Councillor Miah managed to engage in Wikipedia page blanking no fewer than five times: three times in relation to the ‘Loughborough‘ article and two times in relation to the ‘Andy Reed‘ article. Each of these acts of vandalism was rapidly identified and reverted by Wikipedia editors.

Councillor Miah’s page blanking was as follows:

(1) 21:24, 28/12/09
Removed the reference to BNP activist Mark Collett from the ‘Loughborough’ article (section: ‘Notable people’)

This edit appears to be politically motivated.

(2) 21:35, 28/12/09
Removed the reference to Reel Cinema from the ‘Loughborough’ article (section: ‘Economy’)

(3) 21:37, 28/12/09
Removed a paragraph about Reel Cinema from the ‘Loughborough’ article

The two Reel Cinema edits are unusual but could be motivated by local business rivalry.

(4) 21:44, 28/12/09
Removed the entire section ‘Party loyalty’ from the ‘Andy Reed’ article

This edit appears to be an attempt to cover up Loughborough MP Andy Reed’s history of loyalty to the Labour whip and his record on the Iraq War.

(5) 21:47, 28/12/09
Removed five of the six paragraphs in the section ‘Expenses claims’ from the ‘Andy Reed’ article

This edit appears to be an attempt to cover up Loughborough MP Andy Reed’s record on expenses claims. I’m not surprised a Labour councillor and activist might want to hide some of Andy Reed’s disgraceful and obviously embarrassing expenses claims.

Regardless of whether Councillor Jewel Miah has read Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, I believe it is unethical for Councillor Miah to edit Wikipedia to try to rewrite the history of Loughborough and to try to hide the voting record and expenses claims of Loughborough’s Labour MP Andy Reed. On this occasion the edits were spotted and reverted by Wikipedia editors but there seems to be no reasonable explanation for Councillor Miah’s edits other than an attempt to abuse Wikipedia for personal political gain, which is surely not right.

* Note: This post refers to a Wikipedia account called ‘Jewelmiah‘. A quick Google search suggests that the name Jewel Miah is most likely to be Councillor Jewel Miah of Loughborough.

I’m now back in Loughborough after spending a few days in Teesside and North Yorkshire for Christmas and I’m in the process of catching-up with local news.

The following story from the Leicester Mercury on 23 December caught my eye:

A children’s hospice is offering people a guided tour of the House of Commons in return for donations.

The tour, in aid of Loughborough’s Rainbows hospice for children and young people, has been organised by the town’s MP Andy Reed. The trip, on Friday, January 22, will offer a chance to see London’s sights before visiting the iconic parliamentary buildings.

Whilst it is admirable that Loughborough MP Andy Reed is helping to raise money for local charity Rainbow’s Hospice (which was recently in the national press following a visit by David Cameron) I think the means are questionable.

I wonder if it is fair for MPs to use their privileged access to the House of Commons to raise money for particular constituency charities. Clearly MPs cannot offer this unique fundraising opportunity to all charities so how can MPs choose which charities will benefit and which will not. I am not aware of the rules governing MPs granting tours to particular organisations or charities and I could not find anything on Parliament’s website, however, if Mr Reed was offering tours of the House of Commons in exchange for donations to the Labour Party I think there would be little doubt that there was a conflict of interest.

The House of Commons is public property intended for use in the public interest and not narrow personal or political interest. If I was Mr Reed I would be concerned about whether granting tours of the House of Commons in exchange for charitable donations is, or could be construed as, unfair to other charities or unethical use of Parliamentary access rights, albeit well-intentioned. I am happy to be corrected if someone can point me to the rules governing MPs granting tours of the House of Commons or to a particular part of the House of Commons Code of Conduct which permits MPs to use the House of Commons for charitable fundraising.

Update (31/12/09): The opportunity to donate to Rainbow’s Hospice to access the House of Commons has now been covered by the Loughborough Echo.

David Cameron was in Loughborough today to visit Rainbow’s Hospice with prospective Conservative MP for Loughborough Nicky Morgan.

The BBC reports:

David Cameron says he will act to guarantee more funding for hospices which treat terminally ill children, if the Conservatives win the election.

The Tory leader, whose six-year-old son Ivan died this year, said he would ensure “proper funding” for the sector.

Children’s hospices and hospice-at-home care get a £10m-a-year government grant but it is due to expire in March 2011.

Rainbow’s Hospice in Loughborough has been looking after children with incurable disesases for 15 years. It costs nearly £3m a year to run Rainbow’s Hospice and the vast majority of that money comes from fundraising and charitable donations but hospices like Rainbow’s also benefit from government grants.

It’s fantastic that David Cameron chose Rainbow’s in Loughborough to announce that the Conservative Party is committed to continued government funding for this sector. Under current government plans, government grants to hospices like Rainbow’s will end in March 2011 and whilst there needs to be government spending cuts in the near future to provide long-term economic stablility and low interest rates, there are some aspects of government funding, like support for hospices, which must be prioritised and protected. If the Conservatives are elected next year this will happen.

Tomorrow’s Loughborough Echo (page 3, “MP’s expenses are published”) features a short piece about Loughborough MP Andy Reed’s latest expense claims.

When the Leicester Mercury asked Andy Reed to comment on his expenses last week Mr Reed refused to comment. Mr Reed had a bit more time for the Echo and tomorrow’s paper reports:

Mr Reed said: “I invited the Echo round before to see my flat in Westminster – it’s just a normal flat with normal things in it.

I don’t have any moats or duck houses – I’m not going to give a running commentary on my expenses.

Everything’s been done within the rules.”

A couple of interesting comments by Mr Reed: first about his second home being a “normal flat with normal things in it” and second about all his expense claims being “within the rules”. I have shown Andy Reed’s expenses were not necessarily within the rules.

As far as Andy Reed’s second home being a “normal” flat with “normal” things in it, let’s look at a few facts:

* Andy Reed’s flat, which he owns and for which he claims mortgage interest from taxpayers, is in Westminster. The average price of a flat in Westminster is over £640,000 (source: BBC/Land Registry, average for Apr-Jun 2009).

* In the last five years, Mr Reed spent £3,000 on general refurbishments, £3,500 on a new bathroom and £580 on kitchen redecoration for his taxpayer-funded second home, pushing the estimated price of Mr Reed’s flat closer to £650,000 at 2009 prices.

If Mr Reed considers a £650,000 flat to be “normal” then he is certainly living in a Westminster bubble! The average price of a flat in Loughborough is closer to £100,000!

Some of the “normal” things that Andy Reed has furnished his Westminster flat with in the last five years – at taxpayers’ expense – are:

• * £1,700 of kitchen furniture

• * £1,500 on televisions and a video recorder

• * £700 on a sound system

• * £700 on John Lewis tables

• * £360 on other household electricals

That’s £5,000 of furniture and electricals. And that’s just the furnishings we know about from the last five years of published expenses claims. Presumably Mr Reed has lived in this flat since he was first elected to Parliament in 1997, which means he has probably claimed £12,000 from taxpayers to furnish and fit out his second home (assuming an average of £1,000 each year).

As if that wasn’t enough, over the last five years Mr Reed claimed in the region of £3,000 just for the costs of cleaning his taxpayer-funded “normal” flat.

A £650,000 flat with thousands of pounds worth of furniture and electricals which costs thousands of pounds just to clean. These things are “normal” for Loughborough MP Andy Reed (according to his own comments) – but they are not normal for the majority of people in Loughborough. Mr Reed is completely out of touch with people in Loughborough if he thinks his income and lifestyle are “normal”. What’s worse is that he thinks ordinary families earning more than £20,000 should be made to pay for his lifestyle with massive tax increases. If this is what Mr Reed thinks is “normal” then the man is a disgrace and he is certainly not capable of representing the people of Loughborough.

The Times reports that Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Vince Cable today referred to Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft as a “non-dom” in the House of Commons (taking advantage of parliamentary privilege, which means Cable’s claim cannot be challenged in court).

There seems to be growing controversy about the role of non-doms in UK politics because they enjoy UK tax advantages that most UK residents (who are UK domiciled) don’t enjoy. Just days ago David Cameron pledged that under a Conservative government all MPs and peers would have to pay full UK tax and non-doms in Parliament would effectively lose the tax advantages of being non-domiciled.

Loughborough MP Andy Reed is also concerned the involvement of non-doms in UK politics – which he describes as “serious for democracy”. Mr Reed’s concern focuses on Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft.

It is not publicly known if Lord Ashcroft is a non-dom (and Vince Cable didn’t produce any evidence today), however, we do know that Gordon Brown confidante and Labour peer Lord Paul (who recently stepped down at Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords because of questions about £38,000 of expenses) and Labour supporter and packaged foods tycoon Sir Gulam Noon are non-doms. Lord Paul and Sir Gulam are key Labour supporters and donors yet they are non-doms.

If Loughborough MP Andy Reed is seriously concerned about the involvement of non-doms in UK politics – as members of the House of Lords or as donors or otherwise – then perhaps he should make his concerns known to Gordon Brown and urge Gordon Brown and the Labour Party to cut their ties with non-doms. However, I don’t hold out much hope that Andy Reed will do this: (i) because Gordon Brown has recently rewarded Lord Paul by making him a privy counsellor and (ii) because Andy Reed is a hypocrite.

Further to my “initial look” taster post on Friday, I’ve now had chance to go into more detail of Loughborough MP Andy Reed’s most recently-published expenses claims.

By way of background, I initially looked at Andy Reed’s expenses claims when his claims for the years 2004/2005 to 2007/2008 were published on Parliament’s website in June this year. Last Thursday (10 December 2009), further information was published on Parliament’s website about all MPs’ expenses claims in 2008/2009 and early 2009/2010.

For further background, please read:

Analysis of Andy Reed MP’s expenses (18 June 2009)

Has Andy Reed MP overclaimed council tax? (22 June 2009)

Andy Reed MP’s expenses: initial look (11 December 2009)

Turning to the most recent expenses claims, Andy Reed used his 2008/2009 Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) expenses to claim £20,400 including £8,000+ for mortgage interest for his second home, £2,750+ on food and £3,000+ to refurbish his second home. Mr Reed also used his 2008/2009 expenses to buy over £350 of electricals, almost £700 of furniture, over £100 worth of bathroom accessories and over £120 worth of kitchenware.

None of these more recent expenses claims are that surprising, given that Mr Reed previously used his expenses to pay for a £3,500 new bathroom, £1,700 of kitchen furniture, £1,500 of television equipment, £700 of sound equipment, £580 to redecorate his kitchen and £240 for wall brackets – amongst other things!

The Leicester Mercury published an article on Friday about Andy Reed’s latest expense claims and they’ve mainly picked up the same things that I have. Some of the things the Leicester Mercury didn’t comment on are:

(i) Mr Reed routinely claimed a “round figure” for food (either £280 or £290 exactly) but food claims should be on a receipts basis – not a flat rate, which makes it questionable whether these claims were legitimate;

(ii) Mr Reed claimed twice for credit notes/refunds from utility companies, i.e. when he was given repayments for past overbilling, he put these repayments through as expenses so he got the refunds twice (once from the utility and then again from taxpayers);

(iii) Mr Reed claimed more than £3,000 to refurbish his second home, although when he claimed for this cost, he used the expenses category “repairs/insurance”; and

(iv) When the expenses rules changed in May 2009, Andy Reed apparently didn’t read the new rules because in June 2009 he attempted to claim the first instalments of £430 for gas servicing and £140 for his television licence – both of which were immediately rejected by the Fees Office for not complying with the new expenses rules (see PAAE0809 page 19).

According to the Leicester Mercury:

Mr Reed said he was not prepared to discuss the claims yesterday – but directed people to his website for his comments on the issue. He wrote on the website: “Attempts at rational debate on expenses is almost futile now so I won’t add any additional comments to the information that is now available.”

Again, Mr Reed shows how out of touch he is with public sentiment about MPs’ expenses. Members of the public know that if they used a position of trust or responsibility, at work or in another organisation, to take thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money for their own personal enrichment, they would lose their jobs and possibly face criminal charges. It is appalling that MPs like Andy Reed have decided that the best strategy to deal with criticism of their expenses is to adopt the “bunker” mentality and go into hiding – perhaps aware that they have behaved unreasonably and have no defence. Avid blog readers or Twitter followers will be aware that Andy Reed has blocked me from following him on Twitter because I asked him an expenses-related question.

Amounts overclaimed or improperly claimed

I now present the up-to-date total I believe Andy Reed should give back to taxpayers based on his 2008/2009 claims and his earlier claims:

For 2008/2009:

• * £287 spent on electricals (ACA0809 page 15)
• * £76 on electricals (ACA0809 page 17)
• * £700 spent on John Lewis furniture (ACA0809 page 29)
• * £110 spent on bathroom accessories (ACA0809 page 35)
• * £119 spent on kitchenware (ACA0809 page 38)
• * £3,030 spent on refurbishing his second home (ACA0809 page 42)
• * £86 for an electricity bill that was actually a credit note/refund (ACA0809 page 4)
• * £54 for a telephone bill that was actually a credit note/refund (ACA0809 page 54)

For previous years:

• * £900 of expenses that were incurred by the Labour Party, not Andy Reed (previous)
• * £11,110 for electricals and home improvements (previous)
• * £2,400 for website design and hosting costs for Andy Reed’s party political website (previous)

On the basis that Mr Reed’s council tax bill in 2008/2009 was £620 it would seem he may also have overclaimed for council tax in previous years. The evidence for this is both the amounts of previous claims (see my previous post about this in June) but also the fact that in 2008/2009 the Fees Office had to intervene to prevent Mr Reed from overclaiming for council tax (ACA0809 page 51).

For previous years’ council tax, I estimate Mr Reed has overclaimed by £80 in 2006/2007 and by £160 in 2007/2008.

It also appears that in 2004/2005, Andy Reed claimed twice for the same £613 television – once through the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA0405 page 31), designated for second home expenses and once through the Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP0405 page 27), designed for office running costs.

Grand total to repay

The above amounts come to £19,725 – or just shy of £20,000. By the end of the current Parliament, Andy Reed will have claimed around £750,000 in expenses. The rules for expense claims don’t seem to have been strictly applied by the Fees Office but that does not excuse the fact that Andy Reed used Parliament expenses – taxpayers’ money – to refurbish, redecorate and kit-out his second home in London. He also used his expenses to claim for costs incurred by the Labour Party and to support his party political website. It is time that Andy Reed now does the honourable thing and repays the money that was clearly claimed outside the rules or that was claimed for his personal enrichment at taxpayers’ expense.

For Andy Reed to continue to hang on to this money whilst we have record levels of unemployment and the worst recession since the Second World War is, frankly, shameless. I hope Andy Reed will take his head out of the sand, wake up to public opinion and repay this money as soon as possible. Voters in Loughborough are entitled to ask why their MP Andy Reed supports a massive hike in National Insurance – which will cost ordinary families in Loughborough at least £370 a year more in taxes – when it takes Andy Reed (who, remember, has a basic salary of £62,000) just minutes to spend that money on wall brackets or a new table or a new television for his personal enjoyment.

As promised yesterday, I’ve had an initial run through of Loughborough MP Andy Reed’s expense claims, which were published on Parliament’s website yesterday.

I’ll be providing further (fully-referenced) analysis and comment in another blog post at the weekend but here are some headlines figures and initial findings:

Andy Reed claimed £20,386.55 from the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) for 2008/2009.

Mr Reed’s biggest 08/09 ACA expenses claims were mortgage interest (£8,167.55), food (£2,753.50) and a second home refurbishment costing £3,030.29.

Mr Reed claimed the following items (all of which are clearly necessary for his Parliamentary duties) on expenses:

Living room:
* Goodmans Freesat TV box – £157.98
* Panasonic cordless telephones – £89.99
* A BT router/hub device – £75.99
* A device to automatically turn his TV on and off – £29.99
* Lithium batteries – £4.49 (claimed twice)

Kitchen:
* 4 bowls – £30.60
* 4 dinner plates – £30
* 4 salad plates – £27
* Coffee beaker – £25.20
* John Lewis coasters – £10

Bedroom:
* John Lewis side tables – £690

Bathroom:
* Bathroom accessories – £68.80
* Towels – £33.95
* Hangers – £7.20

More to come this weekend, including an up-to-date calculation of the amount Reed should now give back to taxpayers.

Further reading

• * Analysis of Andy Reed MP’s expenses (18 June 2009)
• * Has Andy Reed MP overclaimed council tax? (22 June 2009)
• * MPs still don’t get it (16 October 2009)
• * Andy Reed MP’s expenses: initial look (11 December 2009)
• * Shameless Andy Reed should repay £20,000 (13 December 2009)

(Links updated 13 December 2009)

The BBC reports that more MPs’ expenses claims details were published this morning on Parliament’s website. The expenses published are the 2008/2009 Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) and the 2009/2010 first quarter Personal Additional Accommodation Expenditure (PAAE).

Loughborough MP Andy Reed’s latest expense publications can be found here:

• Andy Reed – ACA 2008/2009
• Andy Reed – PAAE 2009/2010 Q1

As I did previously, I’ll be going through Mr Reed’s expenses claims and commenting here on anything interesting that I spot.

Today’s Pre Budget Report was correctly labelled by George Osborne as more of a “Pre Election Report”. Alistair Darling avoided taking the decisions necessary to start to repair Britain’s ruined economy and reduce the record levels of public debt – clearly running scared of being open with the public so close to the General Election. However, it’s already clear the interest payments on the nation’s debt will haunt future generations for years and severely stifle any economic recovery.

Anyone who earns more than £7,000 will see their income taxed at a minimum marginal rate of 32 percent following National Insurance increases. And at a time of record youth unemployment the Chancellor’s Employer’s National Insurance increases will also make it considerably more expensive for businesses to employ staff – something that has rightly been described as a “tax on jobs”. Unemployment in Loughborough almost doubled between September 2008 and November 2009 and Labour’s “solution” is to make it more difficult and expensive for employers to take on staff.

But despite huge tax increases, Brown and Darling laid out plans to continue borrowing and spending money that they don’t have – in the process doubling the national debt to £1.5 trillion. You don’t have to be an expert to work out that the basic laws of maths and economics mean the government’s current plans will result in the country running out of money. What makes this scenario even more depressing is that, as chancellor, Gordon Brown wasted the good years from 1997 to 2007 during which he could have managed public spending and put money aside for any economic shock. Incredibly Brown and Darling are still in denial about the state of the economy – with Darling claiming that he was presenting the Pre Budget Report “from a position of strength” whilst simultaneously admitting the economy has shrunk by a far greater amount than forecast and that the UK is the only G20 economy in recession!

Families in Loughborough will pay at least £370 a year more in taxes if Gordon Brown wins the General Election yet not a penny of this tax rise will be used to pay down the record public debt. Low paid public sector workers will be particularly hard hit with a combination of a pay freeze and large increases in National Insurance and VAT – meaning a guaranteed real terms reduction in disposable income. Loughborough’s incumbent Labour MP Andy Reed has said he “genuinely welcomes the overall direction” of these measures. I doubt people in Loughborough share his views.

We need an open and straightforward government that recognises the country’s dire economic state and which is willing to implement the changes we radically need to get the economy back on-track such as pursuing the significant efficiency savings needed across all parts of government rather than punishing ordinary working people for the government’s reckless borrowing by aggressively increasing taxes on anyone earning more than £20,000. We need a Conservative government which will repair our broken society and our broken economy. It will come as no surprise to readers that I say the only way this will happen is with the election of Nicky Morgan as the Conservative MP for Loughborough and the election of David Cameron as Prime Minister.

Two weeks ago prospective Conservative MP for Loughborough Nicky Morgan called for a series of public debates to be held between Parliamentary candidates in Loughborough in the run up to next year’s General Election. I think public debates are a great way of making candidates accessible to voters and, crucially, a practical and convenient opportunity for voters to compare candidates side-by-side and work out whether they trust those candidates. The Parliamentary expenses scandal has done so much damage to our system of government and people’s perceptions of politicians (Loughborough’s incumbent Labour MP Andy Reed did not escape the expenses controversy) and it is essential that voters get the opportunity to meet and quiz their candidates on the same platform.

I understand Andy Reed is yet to decide whether he will participate in public debates with the other candidates in Loughborough – a bit like how Gordon Brown dithered over the idea of televised leaders’ debates just a few months ago. However, Gordon Brown eventually agreed to take part in leaders’ debates and I hope that Andy Reed will eventually accept that public debates are a great way to engage with voters and agree to take part too.

Should Andy Reed agree to take part in public debates with Nicky Morgan and other candidates I hope he will take the debates seriously and not try to divert important debates about policy and issues to the sort of “personality politics” that turns off so much of the public. Sadly in the same week that we have seen Gordon Brown’s petty attacks against David Cameron on the basis of his background (rather than Conservative policies), we have evidence that Andy Reed will run a similar “class war” campaign in Loughborough.

Reed wrote on his blog this week:

The Tory Party and right wing media backlash over any slight suggestion that the Tories are a bunch of toffs shows a raw nerve has been struck.

…

Even the most sympathetic Tory to poverty I have met doesn’t understand what it like not just to have on (sic) money – but to have no support or hope of getting money from ‘mummy & daddy’.

…

A billion people on our planet go to bed hungry and now (sic) knowing if tomorrow will even bring food. Our lack of understanding for their plight is the same as the Tory Toffs looking down at most of us. Because of their background they just won’t be able to get it.

This sort of “class war” attack is pathetic but it gives a great deal of insight into the despicable tactics we can expect Labour MPs, desperately clinging to power, to resort to in the run up to polling day. If Andy Reed seriously thinks all Conservative politicians have money on-tap or endless support from “mummy and daddy” he is even more out of touch with reality than even I had imagined – and it makes me wonder how many Conservatives he’s actually met! And the idea that someone’s education or wealth determines their capacity for empathy is complete nonsense.

Come on, Andy – agree to public debates with Nicky Morgan and other candidates so we can see if this pathetic line of attack appeals to the voters of Loughborough! The public saw straight through this “Tory Toffs” attack in the Crewe and Nantwich by election and they will see through it again in Loughborough.