Dan Hope alluded to a conspiracy as to the way I posted Andrew Dismore's letter regarding his expenses. I just published it with no comment whatsoever and a curt "Draw your own conclusions". As I explained in my response to Dan, I thought that was an appropriate way to deal with such a letter, with a follow up response blog from me.
As Andrew Dismore is often keen to say, the devil is in the detail. Having read Andrews letter, he has probably written nothing in it with which I can take issue. What does this tell us? It tells us that when it comes to writing letters, Andrew is an excellent lawyer and I'm a dyslexic guitarist in a punk rock band. It reminds me of a story one of my teachers told me. A well educated athiest was up before the court for heresy at a time when the punishment was death. They asked him what he thought of the teachings of Jesus Christ. The athiest responded "I can say with all my heart and in a clear conscience that I agree with every word Jesus wrote in the bible". A suitably impressed court dismissed the case. When challenged in later life as to how the athiest could square his statement with his views, the athiest responded "Jesus didn't write a single recorded word, he spoke them and other people documented them".
The point I'm making here is that the problem with Andrews letter is not what he says, it's what he doesn't say. I fundamentally disagree with any London MP ever claiming for second homes. He may have claimed less than most but he is shouldn't have claimed anything. Full stop, end of story. It is all very well criticising others for their claims for Moats, but you should look at yourself first. Open the windows of your glass house before throwing stones.
Andrew talks about his 50% pay cut. He chose the job and there were plenty of other people who wanted it. Rightly or wrongly, people expect MP's to set a good example. There is an implicit admission that the second home allowance is wrong. If that is the case, it should never have been claimed. It reminds me of someone my father knew who employed a "financial advisor" to look after a substancial amount of money. After 2 years the friend was tipped off that the advisor had played the market with the money and made a huge profit. When questioned, the advisor returned the money with zero interest. A solicitor was contacted who advised the friend that "He returned all of the money, there was no contract to say he'd actually pay interest, so technically he's done nothing wrong" The solicitor went on to say "You are lucky, in cases like these, usually you lose the lot!". When I read the defence that MP's use "It was within the rules" - I know how my Dad's friend felt. When I read Andrew Dismore's letter, I understood his feelings when he was told "You are lucky". Sure Andrew has not broken the rules, sure compared to some he's been relatively restrained. Sure his letter contains many of the things that I think we'd like to have seen all along, such as on line access to expenses. I just can't help feeling let down.
Having given my feelings about Andrews letter, I must say that he appears to be getting his house in order. He is putting his claims on line, which must be applauded. This is the minimum I expect to see. There is a very interesting point which this has raised. Andrew's opponent for the Conservatives in Hendon is Matthew Offord, who until recently was the Deputy Leader. The Leader of the Council is Mike Freer, who is the Tory PPC for Finchley.
These two have a great opportunity to show whether we can trust them. Put all Councillor expense claims On Line as Andrew Dismore has done for his MP's expenses. This is an ideal opportunity to see if our prospective MP's are any better. If Mike Freer and Matthew Offord refuse full disclosure, we will have to assume that like their Tory colleagues with Moats, they have something to hide.
No comments:
Post a Comment