Labour MPs in marginal seats abused their parliamentary allowances

ConservativeHome can reveal that MPs re-standing in Labour’s fifty most marginal seats increased their spending on taxpayer-funded postage by 35% in the year before the 2005 election only to reduce it by 22% in the year after. On average they spent £6,091 each – the equivalent of 25,380 letters sent by second class mail.

This comes after they voted themselves an extra £10,000 for "communicating with their constituents", further strengthening the incumbency factor. Theresa May commented on the figures, uncovered by Party researchers:

"Gordon Brown wants to legislate to prevent other parties from campaigning in marginal seats, but leave his own MPs to their own devices.  Not content with trade union donations and their new £10,000 Communications Allowance, Labour’s marginal MPs have been spending a small fortune of taxpayers’ money on free postage. Instead of trying to fix the rules to gerrymander the next election, Gordon Brown should reform the system of allowances so that the public have faith that MPs are spending taxpayers’ money appropriately."

Notable examples include Home Secretary Jacqui Smith who increased her spending by 69% in election year, Schools Minister Jim Knight who defended Labour’s most marginal seat by increasing his spending by 50%, and Linda Perham, the MP for Ilford North, who increased her spending by a whopping 338%.

Deputy Editor

Comments

[John Craig]

Well - this comes as a surprise!!!

[Therese Coffey]

My MP Sir George Young has said that he will not use the allowance.
I am hoping the Cameron government will reverse this and provide a small annual saving for the taxpayer. Not big bucks in the grand scheme of things but pennies turn into pounds.

[Oberon Houston]

Can we get the Electoral Commission involved, ok, they are a bit hopeless I know, but who polices this?

[Chad Noble]

" am hoping the Cameron government will reverse this and provide a small annual saving for the taxpayer"

LoL. 10k (50k over 5 years) is a the height of prudence when compared to Cameron's own proposals to plunder taxpayers' coffers to the tune of £186k per MP over five years (£1.2 per vote + 60p per vote per year, based on 2005 general election votes and seat)

[Big Phil]

Good work Theresa. Keep it up.

We should slash MPs' allowances and ban trade union funding. Then and only then should we even think about Ashcroft funding.

[Matt Wright]

Good piece of research. So lets look at this. Labour claim they need the allowance to keep in touch with constituents. Yet suprise, suprise they are using taxpayers money in the run up to elections. Next piece of research is to look at the pattern of spending in terms of council by-elections in their wards. Don't be suprised to find out that the letters increase in the run up to those as well. Go get 'em Theresa.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Excellent. Let's hope you are able to publicise this far beyond the boundaries of Conservative Home.
The parliamentary party was wrong to agree to this allowance in the first place.Although a decent gesture by George Young it will only be effective if ALL Conservative MPs announce they will not be using THEIR £10,000. I wish they would.

[Letters From A Tory]

What is even more frustrating is that Gordon Brown's views on Ashcroft are getting the media's attention whereas the papers aren't that fussed about what Labour MPs are doing. Doesn't bode well, in my opinion.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

[Deborah Thomas]

I have already pledged that I will not claim the £10k allowance when I am elected. This government (with key LibDem support) will stop at nothing to unbalance democracy in their favour.

Is there any way of getting the postage figures for Lib/Tory marginals (particularly where the LibDem MP voted for the allowance)?

Deborah Thomas, PPC Twickenham

[Alex Swanson]

Anywhere we can get figures for our own MPs?

[George Hinton]

Plus ca change.

Why can I not muster up the shock and horror and indignation at this blatant abuse? Because i've seen it all before and the rank corruption of politicians no longer registers. Dan Hannan made a similar comment yesterday in the Telegraph, that the corruption and gravy train of the EU no longer stirs the same level of indignation in him.
We are all becoming inured to the system and the way that it is milked and raped by rapacious politicoes on the make.
I've said it before and i will reiterate, we need a revolution, a peasants revolt, an uprising of the tax-payers, an anarchic interval in which we cleanse the Augean Stable's of the dross, the hangers-on, the corrupt, the spineless, the greasy pole climbers, the limpid vapid spineless sychophants et al etc,.

[Tony Makara]

Labour are in a real panic over their marginal seats. Earlier this year there was a red hot rumour, that Ruth Kelly was intending to flee from her marginal Bolton West seat into the safe Bolton South East seat being vacated by the retiring Brian Iddon. This caused all manner of protest from locals in Bolton West who felt Ms Kelly was choosing to put her own career ahead of the constituents and was planing to cut-and-run after they had supported her, and from the large asian vote in Bolton South East who liked Brian Iddon but didn't want Ruth Kelly sliding into his seat after her comments had upset muslims and community relations several times. Eventually Labour 'installed' a young muslim woman to fight Bolton South East after a very controversial selection process in which the popular local Labour candidate was surprisingly beaten in a very close contest.

So now Ruth Kelly is stuck in Bolton West and has to fight her corner, but with a recent poll saying that 75% of her constituents oppose her support for congestion charges and don't want her to continue as an MP it looks as if her days as a member of parliament are drawing to a close. For the record she was one of the MP urging Gordon Brown to call an autumn election. A sign of the sheer panic in Labour marginals these days.

[passing leftie]

This allowance is available to all MPs. What's the problem? I think giving an allowance so that ALL MPs can keep in touch with their consituents helps promote democracy.

The Tories agreed it, and the reason no ones bothered about it is because it's not a big deal compared with the issue of a tax-shy millionaire who is single handedly not only funding, but running the Tory war machine. That's the scandal you should be looking at.

[Bexie]

Part of the democratic process is the ability of parties to raise and spend money promoting ideas. A popular party gets more money to spend, and unpopular one struggles. That is the tyranny of democracy.

At the heart of State Socialism is the idea that the proletariat is unfit to make decisions about, well anything. Thus a group of experts will advise government on what is best for them, and the government will enforce those ideas.

The trouble with this is that the government ends up unpopular and starts to engage in various kinds of violence and fraud to prevent any alternative ideas, or opposing candidates coming to fore.

We see much of this represented in the nuLab project, the abuses of legislation to ban free speech under PC laws. The unbalancing of funding to enable sitting marginal candidates to fund their marketting from the public purse (Wow taxing us to lie to us! there's a thought) whilst banning opposing candidates from raising money for popular campaings.

It goes on where in New Zealand and the States, think tanks and even charities struggle to publish papers, since it gets viewed as supportive of one candidate and therefore a discounted donation and subject to the funding legislation. So much for free speach...

We must resist this if we are to preserve any remnant of our abilities to speak freely and rule our own lives.

[Sean Fear]

"This allowance is available to all MPs. What's the problem?"

Because it benefits incumbent MPs, at the expense of challengers.

"I think giving an allowance so that ALL MPs can keep in touch with their consituents helps promote democracy."

Hard working MPs had little difficulty keeping in touch with their constituents before this was introduced.

"it is because it's not a big deal compared with the issue of a tax-shy millionaire who is single handedly not only funding, but running the Tory war machine"

On the contrary, Ashcroft is using his own money as he sees fit. Incumbent MPs are using taxpyer's money.

[Cllr Tony Sharp]

You do make me laugh Passing Leftie. What everyone should be looking it is the Labour government handing the Unions taxpayers' money, so the Unions can donate millions of pounds to the Labour Party. That is a scandal.

Lord Ashcroft has donated and loaned less to the Conservatives than Lord Sainsbury has to Labour. Where was your indignation at that?

You can try and muddy the waters but you cannot hide the facts.

[passing leftie]

All of these unions have balloted their members on continuing with the political fund. Individually, each levy payer gives consent to their involvement through the choice to pay the political levy – every individual could opt out if they so chose.

The unions are part of the Labour movement and are a way for millions of working people to have their say.

No, I don't approve of Lord Sainsbury's donations and influence in the Labour party. I didn't know that was a topic for this thread.

[Chad Noble]

"Because it benefits incumbent MPs, at the expense of challengers."

Yes, financial bias to protect the political class from upstart challengers.

It stinks, but it is hard to criticise when Cameron's state funding plans are an even worse (and costly to the taxpayer) example of this where independent MP's get nothing, but Tory (or LabLib) losing PPC's 'earn' thousands for their party.

You're all as bad as each other.

[Andy Peterkin]

"The unions are part of the Labour movement"

Successful individuals are part of the conservative movement. And when is the Labour Party going to stop laundering taxpayers money back to itself via the Trade Union Modernisation Fund?

[John Leonard]

Passing Leftie said:

The Tories agreed it, and the reason no ones bothered about it is because it's not a big deal compared with the issue of a tax-shy millionaire who is single handedly not only funding, but running the Tory war machine.

What a lot of rubbish. Yet more New Labour deceit. Get your facts right! The Conservative party OPPOSED the Communication Allowance. See the Hansard record.

The fact of the matter is that a considerable number of Labour MP's are staring at their P45's and hence the level of spin is becoming increasingly transparent and hysterical! They will say anything to cling onto power.

On this evidence you can't even do the spin anymore!

Here is an extract from the Hansard Record from the 28th March 2007.

6 Communications Allowance,—A Motion was made, and the Question being proposed, (1) That this House approves the First Report of the Members Estimate Committee 2006-07 (House of Commons Paper No. 319) on a Communications Allowance, and is of the opinion that provision should be made with effect from 1st April 2007 for a Communications Allowance in accordance with paragraphs (2)-(4) below.

(2) The allowance shall be for the purpose of assisting Members with expenditure incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in communicating with the public on parliamentary business, and the scope of the allowance shall be as set out in the First Report of the Members Estimate Committee.

(3) The allowance shall be at a rate of £10,000 per year for each Member, uprated annually in line with any increase in the Retail Price Index.

(4) The detailed rules and guidance for the Allowance shall be determined and reviewed from time to time by the Members Estimate Committee—(Mr Jack Straw);

And it being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant Order [26th March]. The House divided.

Tellers for the Ayes, Mr Ian Cawsey, Mr Alan Campbell: 283.

Tellers for the Noes, Mr Mark Lancaster, Mr Crispin Blunt: 188.

Among the Ayes all the usual suspects - Balls, The Millibands, Prescott, Straw and the new New Labour son Quentin Davies etc.

Amongst the Noes - David Cameron, George Osbourne, David Davis, Eric Pickles, Michael Gove and the rest of the Shadow Cabinet.

Hansard record of votes

Interestingly, the Libdems were split Cable and Kramer voted for the allowance, Huhne, Clegg and Hughes against.....

[Michael McGowan]

The usual tedious self-serving nonsense from passing leftie. No one said that union members had not approved political levy. The point is that the Government gives wads of taxpayers' cash without their consent to the unions who then hey presto give it back to the Labour Party in an artificial, non-transparent and contrived circular transaction. If this had been going on between affiliates of Enron, it would have been given its true name: a scam. Lord Ashcroft is free to decide how he spends his own after-tax income, which is rather different from the unions deciding how to spend taxpayers' money. Your basic complaint about Ashcroft is that he is (a) rich; (b) not in the pocket of the Labour Party; and (c) has failed to maximise his UK tax liability.

Agree entirely with Sean and Chad.

[Andrew Woodman]

I think their was only the one Tory who voted for this and it was Quentin Davies. Obviously taking orders before the defection.

Tony Wright made a good case attacking the allowence. I remember we used it in the press release.

[John Leonard]

Partisan politics aside...

This is yet another example of our elected representatives self legislating for their own benefit at the cost of the taxpayer.

After all is there a mass of public opinion in favour of this allowance?

Do we really want these 'communications' from our MP's.

Aren't there better things for the Government to spend our money on?

Will it become yet another waste of the taxpayers money?

Isn't it about time that such matters were taken out of the control of our politicians?

[Mike Wood]

Not just in 2005.

This May, many (mainly Labour and Plaid) Welsh MPs bought advertising space in local and regional newspapers in the week before the Welsh elections.

In England, I know of at least one MP in a marginal constituency who bought a full 4 page "wrap-around" in the local newspaper that went out just a week before the local elections.

Surely it's time that someone challenged this kind of expenditure and got the costs included in the offending Party's election expenses and the MP surcharged for the misues of public funds.

[John Leonard]

Chad Noble:

LoL. 10k (50k over 5 years) is a the height of prudence when compared to Cameron's own proposals to plunder taxpayers' coffers to the tune of £186k per MP over five years (£1.2 per vote + 60p per vote per year, based on 2005 general election votes and seat)

True, but of course no longer valid as the rates now proposed are much lower. However, that does not in itself address the conspiracy by all the major political parties to help themselves to taxpayer funding.

To me it is not who proposed what that needs debate, but the simple principle that our major political parties are proposing to increase the amount they pocket from the taxpayer, as opposed to doing away with the self serving subsidisation of political parties from the public purse!

In my view, this whole Ashcroft / Communications allowance debate is to some extent a diversionary tactic.

And at this point I refer back to my previous post

Isn't it about time that such matters were taken out of the control of our politicians?

[Chad Noble]

Agreed John. Lord Ashcroft deserves much respect for his fierce opposition to extending state funding of political parties.

Cameron is no different to Brown on this, they both seek to extract more money from taxpayers using a formula to insulate and protect our current political class from being challenged.

If Cameron genuinely believed that extra state funding would improve British politics, he would not have proposed a formula to exclude independent MP's from receiving the same income rights as party-affiliated MP's.

In fact, all Labour and the Tories are arguing over is the fine detail of the formula for taking more of our money (communications allowance, money per vote etc etc), not over the principle of whether they have any right to more of our money, which of course they do not, but will take anyway.

[John Leonard]

Chad Noble:

Indeed the irony of it all is that the current funding proposals are based on performance.

The way to undermine the benefitting political parties is just not to vote or donate to them and either not vote at all or vote for a non-benefitting party.

[Annabel Herriott]

I cant remember having any letters from my MP ( Labour, Colne Valley) Is that because I am a Tory, and dont deserve any letters??

[601]

"Linda Perham, the MP for Ilford North, who increased her spending by a whopping 338%."

LoL and it still didn't save her!

[Old Hack]

Here's one for all you people huffing and puffing about these allowances.

Divide any MP's allowances & expenses by the electorate he or she serves, then add together all the expenses and allowances given to your local Councillors and divide by the electorate as appropriate.

Then ask, who gives best value for money?

By comparison with local government, Parliament is usually cheaper.

[James]

As someone asked above - where can we find out what our local MP has spent usingthis allowance, and compare it to the average?

[passing leftie]

Your basic complaint about Ashcroft is that he is (a) rich; (b) not in the pocket of the Labour Party; and (c) has failed to maximise his UK tax liability.

The fact that he is making massive conditional donations to the Conservative party and also insists on being involved in head office is bad, This is the main issue.

"The multimillionaire was awarded his peerage seven years ago after William Hague, then party leader, wrote to Downing Street to say he would return to the UK and pay "tens of millions a year in tax". Lord Ashcroft had already given a similar assurance when settling a libel action."

It's clear he hasn't.

Compared with massive subsidies and tax rebates the private sector, particularly the defense sector gets, the UMF is tiny, and the CBI and the EEF don't have a problem with it. It awards money for specific projects and isn't related to the democratically accountable levy. Of course you oppose it, you'd love to see the unions crushed.

[Chris]

Passing leftie,
The UMF may be assigned to specific projects, but that merely frees up more of the Union's general fund to send to the Labour party. I disagree with the UMF on the grounds that if the unions wish to "modernise" they should have spent their own funds on these projects before begging for grants, instead of giving vast quantities of money in donations.

[passing leftie]

The UMF may be assigned to specific projects, but that merely frees up more of the Union's general fund to send to the Labour party. I disagree with the UMF on the grounds that if the unions wish to "modernise" they should have spent their own funds on these projects before begging for grants, instead of giving vast quantities of money in donations.

Does this also apply to export tax credits and huge business subsidies which the private sector enjoys? If you object to this small subsidy of the unions, surely the vast sums spent on lining the pockets of these businesses must be much, much worse for you?

There is no evidence that the UMF is even indirectly related to the size of union donations.

[Chris]

The export tax credits and business subsidies indirectly benefit the unions by providing their members with jobs. This leads to higher tax revenue thanks to increased wealth which more than covers the cost of business grants. Union donations to Labour meanwhile benefit no one but the Labour party.

By the way UMF grants were approximately £10 million prior to 2005 when the Labour party received £11 million. There is no evidence to substantiate these allegations, for if there was, the practice would have ended following a court case. The UMF swindle like cash for peerages is something that everyone knows happens, but there is never enough evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt.

[MISS CAROLE MATHESON]

1. I WOULD BE OBLIGED IF THE ILFORD CONSERVATIVE PARTY - WOULD CONSIDER THE FORMATION OF A LOBBY/PRESSURE GROUP/COMMITTEE - IN ORDER TO HAVE THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL RIGHT TO BUY DISCOUNT FOR GOVERNMENT RESIDENCES.
2. IN ADDITION TO 1., REFERRAL TO ANY RELEVANT BODY/BODIES ABLE TO ASSIST FOR SUCH A GROUP - PLEAASE ADVISE.
3. AND, ALSO THE E-MAIL ADDRESS/OPTIONS FOR E-MAILING THE ILFORD CONSERVATIVE H.Q., AS I AM UNABLE TO GAIN ACCESS VIA THE SEARCH ENGINE?