Good news just keeps on coming today:

Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, has agreed to repay more than £11,000 in expenses after saying he made an error in claiming extra accommodation costs for two children who did not “routinely” live with him. 

Danczuk said he had made the claims on what he believed at the time to be an accurate interpretation of guidelines from the parliamentary expenses watchdog, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa). 

“Regrettably, due to the vague wording of the rules, I inadvertently claimed 10% more than my annual living allowance, money which was paid directly to my landlord in London and not to me. I hold my hands up and admit that this was an error on my part,” the MP said in a statement.

The "vague wording" the slimy little toad is using to justify his rip off claims:

A supplement of up to £2,425 a year for each dependant you care for. You will need to certify that the dependant routinely lives with you.

Labour ahead in the polls, Iain Duncan Smith has fallen on the trusty British sword of truth and fair play, and Danczuk revealed to be a turd.  Already, this is the best day of my life.

To all those complaining about the amount of coverage of phone hacking

You don't think systematic illegality, cover ups, obstruction of justice and possible attempts by the people involved in all that to influence police and politicians, possible collusion between the police and politicians with those same people, is not the real issue?

Yes, the discussion has moved on from the phone hacking per se, because the problem has turned out to be much bigger and more more pernicious than just hacking into the voicemail of celebs, John Prescott and the occasional murdered school girl.

You may say that the News of the World acted illegally, and in accessing Millie Dowler's voicemail, it added to the torment of Millie Dowler's family. But it only did so in a misguided, pettily criminal effort to get the exclusive, to sell newspapers. Whereas the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, even the likes of The Telegraph, are exploiting this - and thus adding to the torment of Millie Dowler's family all over again - in pursuit of political ends - the break up of Murdoch's hold on the British media.

Bollocks, say I. News International did a lot more than seek to sell newspapers. They appear to have obstructed a police inquiry, bribed police officers, and possibly attempted to suborn very senior police officers. Senior executives seem to hold too much power of politicians, past an present. I am quite confident there is a lot more shit to be squeezed out of this story, but what is already known is sufficient.

Yes, some of the coverage is a bit over the top, but what do you expect? It isn't just the News of the World that has to sell papers, you know, and I don't think a headline like "New Developments In Alleged Accessing Of Voicemail Messages Some Years Ago That's Been Dragging On For Years" is going to boost sales. Blame the sales driven, profit fixated, lowest common denominator, Jordan-is -automatically-news culture of the press (I blame Thatcher). There is a real issue underneath all the froth and the media wankfest - just like there was with the expenses scandal, which featured a similar wankfest - but you're trying to deny that.

Telegraph shows its true colours - and they are yellow

The Telegraph has shown, once again, it's claims to have been doing an important public service by publishing the details of MP's expenses were, bluntly, bollocks.

It has been using the episode to further its own agendum, by focusing attention on details relating to Labour, and particularly Gordon Brown, while deflecting attention from David 'Wisteria' Cameron.

Latest installment:

Mr Brown, who "flipped" the designation of his second home before moving into Downing Street, submitted an estimated electricity bill for his home in Fife which partly covered a period when his London flat was his designated second home.

He also claimed for council tax and service charge bills for his London flat which included periods when his second home was in Scotland. (1)

Sotto voce, it admits that the amounts involved are trivial, just £512.

But it isn't until after it has stated several times that Brown had over-charged, and detailed how this will "will further weaken his position" and described it as a "a humiliating blow for the Prime Minister" - all hyperbole, and opinion rather than reportage - and applied the odious and charged label of 'flipper' to him, that the Telegraph actually axplains what happened:

One bill was for £382.39 and covered the period from July 3 2006 to September 28 2006, a period of 88 days.

Mr Brown had only switched his designated second home from London to Scotland on September 18, meaning the first 77 days of the bill related to a period when his London flat was his designated second home.

If the bill is divided into equal amounts for each day, Mr Brown had claimed for £334.59 of electricity when Fife was not his designated second home.

This is pathetic yellow journalism.

Of course Brown changed his nominated second home, because he had been claiming, legitimately, for his flat in London. Once he moved into Downing Street on becoming leader, he discontinued the claim for the London flat, and transfered it to the Glenrothes house. This was perfectly legitimate and straightforward. But the opportunity to apply the label of 'flipper' - associating Brown with the likes of Margaret Moran - is too good for the Telegraph to miss.

And think about the timing. Why now? Why is this story coming out now, immediately after the elections. It seems pretty likely they've been sitting on this, waiting to deliver it at the time when it will cause most adamage, politicallly. Which shows what a load of sh*t their claims about doing a public service were, if they were honest about that they'd have given us the story at once. Instead, their playing (clumsy) politics with it. So how can we trust them to be unbiased about Cameron's expenses?

As for the alleged over-claims ... bollocks, frankly. He submitted a couple of bills that charged for periods that included days when the property in question was not his allocated second home. Pathetic. It would hardly mention a paragraph. Instead it gets a whole story, surprisingly appearing just after the councl elections and the reshuffle and the resignations.

Disinterested journalism by the Telegraph? Steaming, moist bullshit, it is.

Astonishingly, it took four journalists to produce this piece of crap.

1 - "MPs' expenses: Gordon Brown billed taxpayer for two second homes," by Gordon Rayner, Holly Watt, Robert Winnett and Christopher Hope, published in The Telegraph, 5th of June, 2009. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5456789/mps-expenses-Gordon-Brown-billed-taxpayer-for-two-second-homes.html)

Cameron's £64,000 two finger salute to Britain

The Tory leader, David Cameron, has been making capital out of the expenses row. Never mind he's been aided by what appears to be a deliberately staged leak by tory sympathizers:

... John Wick, the former SAS officer who handed over MPs' expense claims to The Daily Telegraph, was involved in Tory fundraising, although a Tory source insisted it was "on the fringes". It is believed Mr Wick was involved in the Carlton Club political committee, which has raised more than £400,000 for the Tories since Mr Cameron became leader. (1)

We can even ignore how the press coverage - controlled by the pro-conservative Daily Telegraph - has been biased to the point that the public service the newspaper has performed has been undermined by the political use of the leaked information to smear Labour and Gordon Brown, while holding up David Cameron as a paragon (2).

After all, it is his job to make himself look good and the government look bad. And Cameron has worked hard to achieve this, making sure it looks like he is doing something. Unkind commentators - like me, for example - might say he should work hard at something, rather than just trying to create the image of industy, but we'll let that pass for the moment.

He has challenged his MPs and warned them about their claims and has taken a tough line with those making the most craw-sticking claims. Several of Tory MPs, including the long serving ex-minister Douglas Hogg and Cameron's parliamentary aide, Andrew MacKay, have agreed to stand down at the next election. Cameron has appeared to take swift and decisive action, while Brown vacillated.

Only, it is just appearance. A real hard line approach would be to demmand the MPs face reselection and possibly even trigger a byelection - this involves a delightfully silly constitutional fudge (3) - or withdraw the whip and throw the MPs out of the party. But Cameron isn't interested in punishing the cheats and frauds, he's only inteested in winning the election. His 'hardline' is a cynical exercise in image manipulation.

Which brings us to the final kick in the teeth for the long suffering British tax payer.

MPs like Hogg and McKay, or Anthony Steen or Peter Viggers, who have all agreed to stand down at the next election, will actually be paid to go. Who will pay? The tax payer:

The latest announcements take to eight the number of MPs stepping down at the next general election. Quitting then not only saves their parties from bruising by-elections but also ensures each up to £64,000 in "resettlement grant" cash, paid for by the taxpayer. (4)

Rather than risk his chances of winning the election by going through the messy business of expelling the egregious MPs, or - Heaven forbid - making them repay the money they've claimed, Cameron would rather give them MORE MONEY.

And that really is cynical, opportunistic, politics-before-principle. And, surprisingly, it makes me angrier than the expenses farce itself. Perhaps because I am British, I actually expect MPs to be corrupt, venal toe-rags. If they get away with stuff like this, it is my fault as an elector for failing to scrutinise them and to hold them to account. But to see Cameron blithely bribe his worst offenders to to slink of quietly and not make unseemly headlines, is really disgusting.

And, weirdly, this detail is tacked onto the end of a long article in the Independent, featuring the news that Brown and Blair had a meeting, because Brown's worried about losing the elction. That is not news. It's vapid personality politics - "Oh, look, things are so bad, Brown's resorted to asking Tony Blair for help!" Hundreds of thousands of pounds xtra cash being paid to the worst leeches, is news, and should be across the front page.

I could understand the Telegraph not trumpeting it - but the Independent? I'm disappointed.

1 - "Brown calls Blair in to No 10 for secret talks as crisis mounts," by Jane Merrick and Brian Brady, published in The Independent, 24th of May, 2009. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brown-calls-blair-in-to-no-10-for-secret-talks-as-crisis-mounts-1690125.html).
2 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2009/05/expenses-row.html
3 -Merrick and Brady, Op. Cit.
4 - 'Resignation from the British House of Commons,' wikipedia article, viewed 24th of May, 2009. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation_from_the_British_House_of_Commons)

UPDATE - 24th May 2009: To my horror, I've discovered I have ben unfair to David Cameron. He had previously made efforts to get his MPs to publish their expenses (4).

In light of this new information, I have removed some of the prejorative comments in the above post, suggesting he had only become interested in expenses when it became a front page issue.

5 - "Tory MP Nicholas Winterton accuses David Cameron's 'mafia' of trying to force him out," by Rosa Prince, published in the Telegraph, 25th of July, 2008. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/2455511/Tory-MP-Nicholas-Winterton-accuses-David-Camerons-mafia-of-trying-to-force-him-out.html)

More expenses drivel

As the expenses 'crisis' drags on into another tedious week, the Daily Bigot Mail is trying to crucify another MP - who just happens to have a brown skin - for NOT fleecing the tax payer for tens of thousands of punds for a second home in London that hardly ever gets used, and instead opting to stay at a hotel:

Labour MP Khalid Mahmood is the latest to be sucked into the expenses scandal.

He stayed at a five-star hotel in London with his girlfriend and charged hundreds of pounds to the taxpayer as his second home allowance.

Mahmood, who is the MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, claimed a total of £1,350 for nine nights stay over a four-week period in 2004, when he stayed at The Bentley hotel in Kensington.

He also claimed £1,225 for five nights stay in 2008.

Mahmood used the hotel after separating from partner Nasim Akhtar, with whom he lived in Wembley, though this address was not given on his 2004 claims form. (1)

This was the top story on the Daily Mail's website. The Mail has never run the risk of leaving people in any doubt as to its opinions, but now they're flogging the ground where the dead horse used to be.

It seems MPs can not only not have homes in London, where they might reasonably spend a fair bit of time, they can not sleep in hotels either. Perhaps they may sleep in cardboard boxes under bridges, but are they allowed to claim the cost of the box to the tax payer, or must they thrash some homeless type and turf them out of their box?

1 - "Labour MP spent £2,575 staying in 'riot of gold, marble and silk' hotel with girlfriend," unattributed article, publised in The Daily Mail, 23rd of May, 2009. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1186818/Labour-MP-spent-2-575-staying-riot-gold-marble-silk-hotel-girlfriend.html)

Just when it looked like things couldn't get any worse ...

Harriet Harman waded into the expenses row. There is no situation that is not made significantly worse by the involvement of Harriet Harman. Be warned, what follows contains dangerous levels of cosy NuLabour speak and possibly illegal levels of cliche:

We have reached a defining moment – for the public, politicians and, yes, the media. We need a three Rs approach: reparation, reassurance and renewal. On expenses, we must make reparations with a system of reassessment and payback. We have to provide reassurance immediately with an interim system imposing moratoriums on claims for furniture and a cap on interest claims. And, for the future allowance system, we need the independent input that the Committee on Standards In Public Life will provide. But we also must seize the opportunity for much wider debate and action to address the underlying problems – and to renew politics and parliament.

No one is arguing for the status quo, and there is a fresh chance for progress. That will be a debate that takes place within all the parties. As leader of the House of Commons, I believe that it needs to reach all sides of the house – and involve those outside the house too.

And, though I know it is hard to get a hearing on it now, I will continue to argue what I believe to be the truth. That most MPs go into parliament as a matter of public service, and are hard-working, decent and honest. These MPs are every bit as angry as the public to learn not only that public money has been misused, but that their own reputation and that of parliament has been stained in the process. (1)

Just reading that made me want to pluck out mine eyes.

It also prompted me to wonder how NuLabour manages to produce such vacuous waffle. Do they have a standard 'fill in the blanks' statement that they can issue whenever there's a pathetic arse-over-tits event happening? Something like this, I mean:

We have reached a (defining moment/turning point) – for (Choose from: the public, the politicians, our allies, our enemies, the human species, the media, children, our revered war dead, the planet, our new citizens, our indigenous people, British workers, our loyal voters) and, yes, (Insert as necessary, from previous list).

We need a three Rs approach: (Insert three random words begining with R here - suggestions: reassurance (compulsory), regrowth, renewal, reperation, revenge, redistribution (NOT RECOMMENDED), redfinement). On (Insert crisis here), we must make (Insert first R word) with a system of (Insert second and third R word). We have to provide (Insert R word) immediately with an interim system imposing (Insert whatever the Tories suggested last week as if it was a really good idea no-one had thought of until now. Or make something up).

And, for the future (Make spurious reference to the furture - always good to get people away fromt he present), we need the independent input that the (Identify body that will be powerless to deal with future repeat outbreaks of the crisis but will be blamed for it) will provide. But we also must seize the opportunity for much wider debate and action to address the underlying problems – and to renew (Choose from: our country, our leadership, our dreams, our desire for victory, our place as a nation in the front rank of world powers, our status as a firm but fair world power, or something other that might make people feel good).

It works very well:

We have reached a turning point – for our allies, our enemies and, yes, the planet.

We need a three Rs approach: reassurance renewal, revenge, . On the crisis in Iran, we must make renewal with a system of reassurance and revenge. We have to provide reassurance immediately with an interim system imposing harsh sanctions coupled with readiness to take whatever steps are necessary.

And, for the future of the region, we need the independent input that the United Nations inspectors will provide. But we also must seize the opportunity for much wider debate and action to address the underlying problems – and to renew our dreams and our status as a firm but fair world power.

I expect, should Ahmadinejad get stroppy again - he's about due another atack of grandstanding - some NuLabour goon will mouth something very similar to the above.

And I'll be arrested on suspicion of having hacked into NuLabour's top secret speech writing computer.

1 - "Our chance to renew politics," by Harriet Harman, published in The Guardian, 17th of May, 2009. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/17/mps-expenses-reform-democracy)

David Irving's take on the expenses fiasco

From the pages of David irving's online diary:

IN the evening, the television news announces that a Mr Shahid Malik, Britain's previously unnoticed and unheard-of "Justice Minister," who turns out to be a Black with a Midlands accent, has announced his resignation for fraudulently claiming from the taxpayers tens of thousands of pounds rent repayments for a property. He tours the TV studios at mid-day professing his honesty. As my Mother used to say, "The more they talk of their honesty, the more we count the spoons." By evening, the prime minister has been forced to suspend him.

I did not even know we had a justice minister, let alone a Black ... (1)

WTF is with the capitalisation of 'black'? Why is Mr Malik's skin colour relevant at all? I'm interested in his competence and his honesty, not his pigmentation. Still, some people might have different priorities, and think a dishonest all-white Britain preferable to an honest not-all-white Britain.

We haven't arrived at either, od course, but it highlights what I suspects are Irving's priorities - racial purity over moral purity. Though he would probably argue the two go hand in hand.

Further on, he seems to return to the theme of racial taint in Britainia:

A real British Parliament must now cleanse its green-leather benches of the fraudsters, phoney Britons, embezzlers, shysters, and freaks ... (2)

"Phoney Britons"? What could he mean ...

1 - From 'A Radical's Diary,' by David Irving, dated 15th of May, 2009. (http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2009/160509.html)
2 - ibid.

Expenses Row

Last week the Telegraph performed an important public service by publishing details of British M.P.'s expense claims, pre-empting the publication of the efited version that Parliament was going to produce. For this, the paper should be applauded, as it has taken a risk and there is a suggestion that legal action may be taken.

In that first set of reports, the Telegraph concentrated on claims made by the Labour government (1). This could be justified, as the actions of the government are inherently of greater interest than the actions of the opposition. This week, the newspaper has published details of the Conservative claims (2).

While the Telegraph has been at pains to point out it is being even-handed, I think it is showing clear bias. First of all, the publication of the Labour parties claims first - though arguably justified - could equally be a deliberate move to make sure Labour are the ones most visible in the spotlight, and receive the greatest amount of - entirely deserved - public opprobrium. The names published after the first week blur. People will remember the names of Labour M.P.s and that they are linked with the scandal, whereas the Tories will just be more politicians grafting for all they're worth.

Second, there is a difference in the way that the expenses relating to the Tories are being presented. While the Telegraph is publishing details that will make the conservatives squirm, David Cameron is being shielded - perhaps dishonestly. While Gordon Brown was roasted over his (apparently legitimate) payments to his brother, the reporting on Cameron is characterised by vagueness. We're told:

Mr Cameron has claimed only for mortgage interest and utility bills on his Oxfordshire constituency cottage. Some years, his Parliamentary expense records are only 20 pages long – compared with expenses claims of more than 90 pages for some of his colleagues. (3)

One can't help but wonder how much a 'cottage' in Chipping Norton might cost, and how much the tax payer might be paying out to service the loan. It is within the rules, obviously, but the lack of hard data suggests that Mr Cameron is getting the soft treatment.

And what about the next line, where we can take comfort in the fact that his expense claims are "only 20 pages long" in some years. Some years? What about the other years? Was it 30 pages long? 50? And if M.P.s are lodging claims of 90 pages, why aren't they being named? Two possible reasons - because they're claims were justified (M.P.s from the further flung parts of Britain), or because they were Tories and the Telegraph didn't want to draw attention to that annoying fact?

And why focus on the number of pages in his expenses claim - a meaningless measurement - than giving us a straightforward figure, straight away?

Because, of course, they don't want to admit that Cameron is no better than the rest of them. Further on, we're given some figures:

Mr Cameron claimed more than £1,700 a month in mortgage interest during two of the years covered by Parliamentary records.

In total, Mr Cameron has claimed £82,450 towards the cost of his second home over the past four years. In the 2004-05 financial year, he claimed the maximum allowance ... (4)

But by this point, a lot of people will have stopped reading and even those that do will have received the impression that David Cameron is squeaky clean - just like those reading reading about Brown's payments to his brother will have been lead to think that there was something untoward going on, due to thespin put on the facts by the Telegraph.

Even in admitting that Cameron has been as busy with his claims as his colleagues, the Telegraph can't resist trying to put him forward as Mr Honest. The section quoted immediately above continues:

... but during 2007-08, he was only the 406th highest-claiming MP.

Mr Cameron’s personal claims are likely to put him in a strong position to root out problems uncovered among other Conservative MPs. (5)

That is opinion, being presented as fact in the reportage section of the Telegraph, not in the leader or the op-ed pages. It's a pathetic lapse of journalism and it is that sort of clumsy attempt to spin this cluster-fuck of corruption to Cameron's advantage that makes the Telegraph's pontificating about honesty, openess and the public good, disingenuous. Cameron might - or might not - be a decent, upstanding fellow, but the Telegraph is trying to create this idea in the minds of its readers.

Immediately afterwards, comes a shot at Gordon Brown:

His simple claims stand in contrast to those of Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister. Mr Brown switched the property on which he claims his allowance after becoming Prime Minister.

Last week, he repaid a £150 plumbing bill after incorrectly claiming for it twice. His brother also organised a cleaner for his London flat between 2004 and 2006. (6)

There is nothing in there that the Telegraph has highlighted as untoward, and repeating it again is drumming home the message - "Brown gave his brother money, Brown calimed twice for stuff, Brown's a flipper." Again, the Telegraph is manipulating its readers, not reporting facts.

Contrast that with the report on Brown's claims made in the Telegraph a few days earlier (7). The report kicked off with a headline screaming "Gordon Brown’s house swap that let him claim thousands." The Cameron story was headed up, "David Cameron limits claims to mortgage and utilities." Do you notice a slight difference in tone there?

The sub-headings go even further. We're informed that "Gordon Brown used his Parliamentary allowances to boost his expenses claims by switching his designated second home shortly before he moved into Downing Street upon becoming Prime Minister," which suggests something murky is afoot, but apparently, "David Cameron, the Conservative leader, has some of the most straightforward expense claims of any member of the shadow Cabinet."

Note the qualifiers there, by the way, "most straightforward" and "of the Shadow cabinet." "Straightforward" doesn't mean "smallest" "honest," or "justifed." "Of the shadow cabinet" might indicate he fairs rather badly compared to other MPs. Who knows? Not us, based on the mealy-mouthed coverage in the Telegraph.

Meanwhile, we're breathlessly informed about the intimate details of Brown's claims. This is fairly standard propoganda Tsunamai tactics - there isn't anything much amiss with Brown's claims, so simply go for the quantitiative approach and tell us how much he's billing us for, to make it seem bad. We get told we paid for his toilet to be unblocked, for goodness sake. While it is admitted that - unlike David Cameron - Brown "did not claim mort­gage interest payments on the Fife home" the Telegraph is desperate to drum up some suggestion of impropriety. So we get the payments to his brother - deliberately phrased as payments to "his brother, Andrew, a high-flying executive ... for “cleaning services”," which make it sound disingenuous, as if Andrew Brown was the one doing the cleaning (8).

The main point of the article is that Brown billed the tax payer for a London flat and then 'flipped' his claim to his constituency home. It is a smoke and mirror routine - once the facts are clear, it is innocuous. Brown made the change just before becoming Prime Minister. Prior to that, he'd claimed for a second home in London, rather than living at the official Chancellor's residence at Numer 11 Downing Street. Brown, as Chancellor, didn't live at Number 11, because it was occupied by Tony Blair, who lived in the more spacious Number 11. Brown continued the practice and didn't physically move into the Chancellor's residence until he became Prime Minister (9).

This accounts for Brown's refusal to take advantage of the 'grace and favour' flat he was entiteled to - Tony Blair was living in it - and the whole Telegraph case on his second home claim collapses once that's made clear. Of course, the Telegraph doesn't bother to mention that small circumstance. Why spoil a good beat up?

1 - "Cabinet MP's expenses," index of different articles relating to the claims made by ministers and ex-ministers, viewed 13th of May, 2009. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/cabinet-expenses/)
2 - "Conservative MP's expenses," index of different articles relating to the claims made by Conservative M.P.s and ex-M.P.s, viewed 13th of May, 2009. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/)
3 - "David Cameron limits claims to mortgage and utilities: MPs expenses," by Robert Winnett, published in The Telegraph, 11th of May, 2009. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5305130/David-Cameron-limits-claims-to-mortgage-and-utilities-MPs-expenses.html)
4 - ibid.
5 - ibid.
6 - ibid.
7 - "MPs' expenses: Gordon Brown’s house swap that let him claim thousands," by Rosa Price and Holly Watt, published in The Telegraph, 8th of May, 2009. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5293446/MPs-expenses-Gordon-Browns-house-swap-that-let-him-claim-thousands.html)
8 - The headlines and extracts quoted in this paragraph are drawn from the articles identified in #3 and #7, above.
9 - As per the wikipedia article, "11 Downing Street," viewed on 13th of May, 2009. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_Downing_Street)