Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
LibDem's Schmitz says Lammy 'claimed £25,000 .... for second home'.
A campaign letter from David Schmitz (Liberal Democrats) posted through Harringay letterboxs this weekend claims;
'Tottenham's Labour MP has claimed £25,000 of taxpayer's money for a second home.'
To the Liberal Democrat team; Can you reveal your source? What exactly was claimed for and for which home?
To the Labour team; Can you refute this claim or explain it?
Maybe other HOL members have different questions re the above claim.
'Tottenham's Labour MP has claimed £25,000 of taxpayer's money for a second home.'
To the Liberal Democrat team; Can you reveal your source? What exactly was claimed for and for which home?
To the Labour team; Can you refute this claim or explain it?
Maybe other HOL members have different questions re the above claim.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by perdeep on
-
I don't think I was slagging anyone off actually-well may be I was slagging of what he was doing but not the person- wouldn't want to give him low self esteem now would I?! I love this land of Tottenham where free speech is encouraged and we can slag off our MP- oh a novel thought as of course we live in a one party world and opposition will be destroyed!!! Seriously, I'm just encouraging voting even if it an anti vote than a pro vote! in fact all a bit a laugh, I'm quite kind to that chap I own my feelings of intense dislike and give examples of why I don't like him as an MP. All I will say though is John, come over to Tottenham and I'll introduce you to the wonders of how much people hate politicans and the strange reasons held by others in disliking Lammy. Mine are nothing compared to what I have heard!
Also, £25k is more than the average person earns and it is a disgrace that anyone living not far from his work place can claim that kind of money. I wonder why he stopped claiming did work get easier could he get home at easier- did he work out a route on public transport- oh or or was it the fear of a scandal.....
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Also, £25k is more than the average person earns and it is a disgrace that anyone living not far from his work place can claim that kind of money.
More than the average person earns in two years? He's a Barrister, he went to University, he's not the average person. I do not want to be represented by the "average person" who gets a night bus home after working late.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Then you've missed the point of the system, John.
Actually, MPs expenses were intended for that average person that you do not want in the houses of Parliament, who also wanted to be an MP but would not have been able to afford it. Traditionally, only the rich could afford the luxury of becoming our elected representatives and so this system was designed for equity. It was never intended for millionaires like Barbara Follett and Antony Steen. It was intended to allow an ordinary person from out of London to be able to attend Parliament. It was roundly abused and then yours and my money was used to go to court to prevent you and I from seeing how they spent our money.
Imagine if you gave someone fifty quid and you asked politely how they would spend it- they replied that it was a matter of personal privacy and none of your business although it is your money they spent-you then reasonably asked again and they then borrowed a few thousand quid off you to take you to court to stop you asking how they'd spent your original 50. In the end they only way you could find out was when someone who thought you were being wronged, stole the receipts and got them published in the Haringey Indy.
That is, in effect, what happened in Paliament and that is the real scandal in all this. Lammy was as much part of this scandal as anyone.
Perdeep, I did go to the Tottenham hustings and I heard exactly how people feel. They are desperate for an MP that concerns himself more with Tottenham matters. They made their feelings very clear which is maybe why Mr Lammy left early after two angry outbursts at the audience.
-
Permalink Reply by Mr Growbag on
-
"Actually, MPs expenses were intended for that average person... who also wanted to be an MP but would not have been able to afford it... this system was designed for equity."
I hope you don't mind me asking, Liz, but is this based on any particular source? I don't see that paying MPs expenses would increase diversity of social access to government; simply as the financially difficult bit is surely the process of getting elected for which expenses are not available. After you are elected you get paid a salary anyhow.
My understanding was that the expansion of the expenses system was for the less altruistic reason that politicians' salaries no longer reflected the responsibility of the job they did compared to the rest of the market, but MPs realised that the electorate would go mad if they voted to give themselves an outright pay-rise.
-
-
The Silent State by Heather Brooke who challenged the MPs not making their expenses open for scrutiny makes a good read. I don't have to hand the historical source for the history of expenses but if you are really interested I'm sure it could be dig up but I believe it was in BBC History mag. The formation of the Labour Party in the early 20th century was shaped by the need to provide election expenses which were raised through trade union levies (which is why there is such a connection between Party and union today) and subsequently living expenses to working class politicians. By granting expenses from the public purse, you avoided the earlier problems of patronage and undue influence.
However you are right that in more recent times the expansion of the expenses system was to avoid giving themselves a payrise but that was not why it was originally set up. Some modest reforms proposed by Gordon Brown to improve transparency and do away with certain privileges before the scandal broke were voted down by Parliament, including Lammy.
The problem here is not the idea that MPs should not claim expenses but that we are not allowed to see what they spend their money on. If you are claiming work expenses, then stationery, reasonable accommodation and even hospitality is fair, so long as we who are bankrolling the system can see if we wish what that entails. I wasn't too bothered by claims for jaffa cakes or some of the other petty stuff that was crowed over but the fact that some MPs were building up property portfolios or claiming for mortgages that they no longer paid was very serious. The job may have entailed more responsibility but it did not include enriching yourself at the expense of the public purse.
Heather Brooke is American. Say what you may about Americans, you are entitled to see every penny that is spent by local officials in the USA- and she was shocked that we were not and thank god for that but she still didn't win- only illegal activity and the publication in the press of unredacted documents actually brought this matter to a head. -
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
The process of getting elected is to have yourself adopted by a party as a prospective candidate, after which election expenses ARE available.
MPs do vote themselves an outright pay rise from time to time - usually in excess of the rise in the cost of living or inflation. As Liz says, the expenses for which they can claim are for unavoidable expenses wholly incurred in the performance of their duties. Where an MP represents a constituency outside reasonable travelling distance from Westminster (outside the M25. say) this might include the cost of a London pied a terre.
And what responsibility do ordinary MPs bear when 99% of them vote as directed by the party whips? -
-
-
Incidentally, a few people thought that local authorities would come under similar fire for expenses and put in FOIs about it. It turned out that, apart from a couple of silly cases, all was above board. This may be because LAs are subject to audit and there is a short period of the year when the general public if they are so minded can go and examine the expenditure of councillors by booking an appointment. Brooke maintains that it is this openness to scrutiny that keeps public bodies honest and people less tempted to bend the rules. It is quite easy to find out what a councillor spends by comparison to an MP.
-
-
Thanks Liz - that's interesting and I'm totally with you on para 3.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
People can find out about councillors' allowances, expenses and whether or not we follow the rules. But I wouldn't agree it's "quite easy".
Former councillor Lucy Craig and I made an appointment to view the details of "Lord" Toby Harris's famous taxis. It meant a formal request in the period when accounts were 'open' and then sitting in an office making notes. Not a big hurdle; but not as easy as it should be.
On occasions I've looked-up the 'Register of Gifts & Hospitality' and Declarations of Interests. This is very much a trust system and relies on the honesty and promptness of councillors filling in the form. One councillor was late making declarations about his company directorships - in one case, a couple of years late. There was apparently no questioning of this. Because declarations were undated, there was no evidence to show the rules had been broken.
Several years ago I tried to discover what additional allowances (then) councillors received as members of other boards, 'partnerships', and other external bodies for which their membership depended on being a councillor. (In contrast to a body where they'd applied as individuals.)
It needed a lot of phoning and/or hunting through websites simply to find out who was a member of what - and I strongly doubt that my list was complete. I had to visit another London Borough to see one folder of declarations (on paper) and was astonished to be told that they destroyed these records every four years after the elections. At least two members of a particular body - including one Haringey councillor - had declined to fill in declarations; that borough's lawyer advising it was not compulsory.
In my view, all this information should be automatically available - including online. And with the very minimum of effort - no need for Heather Brooke or anyone else to have to dig.
I'd also like to see the cost of these external bodies identified, publicly listed and online. Plus the costs of conferences, 'leadership' courses etc etc. When considering possible cuts, this is an area where modest but real savings are possible - in most cases with no impact on front-line services.
Labour councillor & candidate Tottenham Hale.)
-
-
My final comment was really at the expense of Parliamentary rules which ranks a receipt for jaffa cakes and tea bags as important as anti-terrorist info! Until young crusaders like the folks that built things like TheyWorkForYou came along, information on voting records etc were buried in the weighty tomes of Hansard. MPs fought their right to present this info...now they often link to the site! Time has to come when their expense details are treated in the same way.
You're right though. Council information is still too difficult to collect unless you are tenacious, sometimes you are charged for it. Often you are given the run around or treated with suspicion for asking for any documentation. Again in many other countries, you fetch up, fill in a form and you are brought the info for free at any time, not during a set period.
Alan, I totally agree that all of this should be available online - in many other countries, it is. Brooke is adamant that this information should be accessible at the click of mouse.
Lots of people trying to free the data - I like Openly Local which makes it a damn site easier to uncover stuff than trawling the Haringey website. Here's your page Alan and here's the page for my postcode
Harringayonline has a widget here with info from openly local
-
Permalink Reply by Oh no: nevermind! on
-
Hello Alan,
Have been fined £120 for left turn into Sainsburys off Green lanes and being in the bus lane on 21st December 2009. Still fighting it (with great help from James). Is there any update on this? Does the following apply?
This from the Department for Transport; Bus priority: The way ahead ;
From Department of Transport
When the bus lane passes a junction with a major left turn into a side road, the boundary line of the bus lane should be replaced with a broken line (to diagram 1010). This should commence 30m in advance of the junction.
At other junctions, the boundary line (diagram 1049) marking should be terminated approximately 10m before the junction and recommence beyond the junction in combination with a marking to diagram 1010.
.....................................................................
So which have they installed; 30m or 10m? It should be the former as it's surely 'a major left hand turn'.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
