In many cases we will never know what it is they were so afraid of us knowing.  Are they ashamed because it would reveal that they spend a lot of time away from their MP jobs, or ashamed because it would reveal just how little they have to do to pick up sums the rest of us work 37 hours a week for every week?  Or is it a bit of both?

Francis Maude has been shedding interests steadily over the last year or so, although the paper suggests he may not be able to get rid of them all in time.  At the peak of his activity I reckon he was getting at least £120,000 a year from other jobs, and the ST reckons that he still gets £59,000, plus whatever Barclays pays him.   The implication is that whatever disclosure would reveal it is worth at least £59,000 to Maude to keep it hidden.

Do you have a secret you would give up £59,000 a year to keep?   Bit of a moot point if you don’t have that sort of income to give up, but something to ponder on.  The only thing for certain is that whatever it is they wanted to hide will remain hidden, because the requirement to publish details of outside earnings has no retrospective element at all.

Last year David Cameron wanted to make his frontbench team give up their extra jobs and he was faced with a revolt.  Many of them said they would resign from their front bench positions than give up their other jobs, and so Cameron backed down, but now they are voluntarily giving those jobs up just because the alternative is let us know all about them!

Notice that at the time of that story, just seven months ago, Maude was listed as having eight other jobs, and is now down to just three.

Admittedly, the over-zealous censorship makes it even harder to scrutinise the public records, and much of what the Telegraph uncovered could not have been found in the redacted records, but even that would have introduced even more complication to the task: with all those addresses available there was even more to cross-check against earlier/later claims and against land registries.

Obviously I had a look through Francis Maude’s claims.  I wasn’t really expecting to find anything scandalous that the Telegraph had missed, so it was a bit of a boring exercise.  That is not to say that I wasn’t amazed by some of it:

The 2005/2006 claim is quite interesting, because it really looks like he claimed for one bill twice! Page 9 has a phone bill for 12th June 2005 for £71.24 which was claimed for on 30th June.   Hang on though – page 6 is another phone bill, a reminder dated 30th June for £71.24 which was claimed in January 2006, along with September’s overdue phone bill reminder.  I have double-checked and can’t avoid the conclusion that this is a duplicate claim – but with all the blanking out it is hard to tell as the period covered is information that has obvioulsy been deemed sensitive.

Actually I was quite surprised to see how many of Francis Maude’s bills were overdue.  I have to confess to having the odd overdue bill myself, before I moved everything over to direct debits, but then I’m not a millionaire with staff to manage my affairs so I figure I have a bit more of an excuse.  A quick look throgh a few other randomly-selected MPs revealed that waiting for the red bill is not that unusual for MPs.

There might be more in there somewhere, but it hardly seems worth hunting for it – there are a few regular writers to the local paper who are almost guaranteed to be going through it line by line: I’ll just wait and see what they turn up.

I should qualify the earlier statement about most of the claims being fine.  It doesn’t mean I agree with them, just that they are acceptable within the rules.  Its the rules I disagree with.  Every claim form carries a notice that you can only claim for costs you have actually paid for expenses that are “wholly, exclusively and necessarily paid to enable you to stay overnight away from your only or main home for the purposes of performing your parliamentary duties.”

I do not agree that it is necessary to rent or buy a home that is effectively a family home, for overnight business use.  I can’t imagine any other employer in the land would accept most of the claims I have seen as necessary.

I still can’t believe it is not a clever piece of satire cooked up by Chris Morris or someone like that.   His argument seems to be that the whole expense claims controversy is the fault of the Labour government because…  they introduced the Freedom of Information act.  If it wasn’t for that everything would be fine because ignorance is bliss.

Also he says the criticism of him is motivated by jealousy about his “vewy vewy large house” that “some people say looks like Balmoral”

• Organise a thorough review of suspected excessive and abusive claims – regardless of whether they were eventually signed off by an over-worked Fees Office.
• Support the immediate removal of the whip from individual MPs who have brought the party into disrepute over this issue and allow CLPs to trigger reselection ballots against them.

Not a lot to ask for is it?

Anybody else who wants to add their signature to the letter can do so by sending a mail to necletter@hotmail.co.uk – just make sure you mention any positions you hold in the party – constituency chair, PPC, councillor, or whatever.

I have added my name to it, although I will not be around to see what happens at the NEC meeting…   ironically, I shall be off in France for a couple of days with work and therefore on expenses.  Not as hypocritical as it sounds: they will all be properly receipted, wholly necessary, and lower than they could be – taking the RER as far as I can and a taxi just for the last little bit.

Of course the story makes it sound like all this is his own idea, rather than something forced on him by his boss.  He is still sticking to his claims that everything was within the rules (which nobody has ever disputed) .  Very wisely, he does not repeat his line about being “good value”, but he does repeat his assertion that all his claims were also within the spirit of the rules, and that is where most people seem to disagree.

The question is, if he is so certain that his claims were not only legal but also within the spirit of the rules why is he going to stop making them?    Either they are perfectly OK (there is a legitimate, unavoidable expense, incurred solely in the course of parliamentary duties which puts him out of pocket just for doing his job – which would be wrong) in which case he should keep claiming them, or they are not OK and he should repay what he has already claimed.  This gesture is neither one thing nor the other.

Giving up any capital gain is good though, on the face of it.  Mind you, it is an easy promise to make in a deperssed housing market.   If the market picks up, expect a quick sale with the proceeds going to another place on which he will be able to benefit from any appreciation of value.

The issues of why there is such a large claim for travel (enough to get to London and back every working day) when he apparently stays up in London, and whether this publicly funded house supports his non-parliamentary business are not addressed, and seem to not be the subjects of any investigations – but the WSCT do not delve into any of this, despite their oft-repeated claims to be impartial.

They are happy to allow the Maude interpretation to stand: that he ‘inadvertantly’ contributed to the damaged reputatin of politics, while doing nothing at all wrong, and has magnanimously decided to make a personal sacrifice to atone for the sins of others.  No suggestion that he was told to do this, or else.

But let’s not dwell on the negatives: this is a good start, and maybe it means we can move onto things of more significance from now on.

The column then starts to list what it sees as Maude’s good points, like his “exemplary commitment to looking after his constituents who seek his help” (i.e. actually doing the job he is paid for.)

It rounds of by saying that recent controversies might suggest that he is “more self-serving than selfless” but concludes that their “objective view, free from party politics is that the opposite is true” and that Francis Maude is actually a living saint or words to that effect.

Just imagine what they would have said if they weren’t being totally objective and impartial!  Not that I am complaining about that – anyone who owns a newspaper can say what they want in it as much as anybody who owns a blog can – and it makes commercial sense to reflect the perceived opinions of their customer base.

I don’t know about the paranoid conspiracy theory though. It sounds more like something Maude’s office dreamed up, knowing that there was more dirt to come, which it duly did a mere couple of days later with the news that he had tried to claim mortgage payments for his family home and was disallowed – which was the catalyst for him then buying an unnecessary flat in London that he would be able to claim for.

I had to smile a bit, because if there is a concerted campaign going on it is very firmly directed at Labour MPs and ministers.  I wouldn’t dream of defending the behaviour those who were caught out, but surely it is not paranoia to think these details are being selectively leaked so that Labour MPs get the grief and by the time the equally bad behaviour of the Tories comes to light we are all bored with the story.

Really, when you are caught with your fingers in the till, saying that you are being unfairly singled out is not much of a defence.   Had those fingers not been in the till in the first place then nobody could single you out even if they wanted to.

And don’t get me started on the defence of ‘it was all within the rules’.  That is the sort of justification that tax avoiders make.

But then, what are the rules?  Jim Dodd took the time to actually read them, and found these amongst the principles:

Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage of the resources being claimed.

Must remember that one the next time Francis Maude talks about being within the letter and spirit of the rules!

Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else.

Speaks for itself really doesn’t it?  It would be interesting to hear how the ‘flipping’ of homes and other recent claims can be justified against those guidelines.

Back to the editorial column for a moment though.  There was a sideways reference to Maude’s many other jobs:

MPs know that while there are clear benefits to maintaining outside interests and remaining in touch with commercial realities, there can be a heavy price to be paid in terms of public perception

I am really tired of this old chestnut about keeping in touch with real life.  I might have more sympathy with the idea if more MPs decided to spend a week working 8 to 4 in a warehouse picking goods from shelves, or a couple of weeks as a classroom assistant, or driving a taxi or something.  (Or like my own MP, putting her nurses uniform on and going back on the wards)  Why they always decide that to be in touch you have to do jobs that involve a few board meetings and good lunches – experiences probably alien to 99% of their constituents – even in a relatively affluent area like Horsham.

If they then donated any earnings to a charity on the basis that they were already getting paid a full-time salary several times the level of the national median and that the work was for their own self-improvement and to benefit them by keeping them grounded in real life I would have even more sympathy.

Or is that not the sort of ‘clear benefits’ being referred to?  When I see MPs acting as advisers, non-executive directors and the like I only see one sort of benefit – and in many cases a clear conflict of interests: for example Nicholas Soames on the board of a defence company and on a committee looking into defence expenditure.

Ok. Even I am bored of the topic now.  I’ll say no more…

…unless next week we find out that Maude is paying his wife £40k a year to be his secretary or something.

It’s always hard for individual members to stand up at constituency party meetings to question the MPs. But they must do it if the Labour party is to survive with it’s reputation intact.

All academic in my own case as my own MP, Laura Moffatt, is quite frugal and a lot more in touch with the mood of her local party and constituents than, say, Barbara Follett appears to be, but I would hope that if that was not the case we would have the guts to do what other constituencies should be considering – on all sides of the house.

The right-leaning agitators who are selectively leaking details of Labour MPs before the official publication (and for a price) intend to stir up anti-Labour sentiment but are effectively stirring up a more general anti-politics sentiment which is ultimately to the detriment of all parties.

Those of us on the ground floor, knocking on doors and doing all the donkey work should not be made to feel ashamed of being engaged and involved.  We do not represent the (hopefully) few MPs who are systematically abusing the system, but represent those who have been most let down by them: our neighbours only pay for it through their taxes – we do that and give up our spare time and spare cash.

1. but that won’t stop me adding a little

A couple of weeks ago I got a phone call from the local paper asking me what I thought about Maude claiming the full additional costs allowance to pay for a mortgage on a place in London.  I didn’t really give a quotable reply because I was literally almost speechless.  It is difficult to summonup a sound bite when you are in a state of shock.

The reason was that, having commuted from Sussex to London for many years I could not see why anybody would need a permanent place in town – and especially not for a part-time job.

All that was before I knew that it is actually even worse than that: he already owned a house in the same street, but rented that out and bought a flat to claim expenses on.

Looking into his expense claims I found that there were also claims for nearly £4000 for travel between home and Westminster, just adding to list of wrongness.

This is not just a case of having a go at your opponent because there is an opportunity to (and you really do have to make something of it when presented with an open goal like this) but I really do think this is taking advantage of the system, and having him say in the local paper that the taxpayer has got good value from him is just the height of arrogance.

There are so many things wrong about it all:

• For a start there is the fact that Maude makes so much of the demands of being an MP meaning that he can’t commute like his constituents do.  That would be a lot more credible if he took part in even half the votes inthe commons.
• Even if it is necessary to stay overnight sometimes, is it necessary to buy somewhere?  I know a few people who have really long journeys to work – much longer than Francis Maude’s – who decided to keep a place in London, but they rented somewhere cheap and cheerful as a place to crash.  Of course they had to pay for it themselves.  I can see how expenses incurred should be covered, but this is just inventing an expense so it can be claimed, and more than that it is using our money to pay for an investment on which I am sure he will keep any capital gains at the end.
  This is like travelling somewhere on business and not claiming mileage, but getting the company to buy you a car as well – which you can keep if you leave.
• And what about those train fares?  Considering that Parliament only sits for part of the year, and then not every day of the week, and than Maude is absent for more than half of votes, those claims for train fares and mileage are more than enough to cover him travelling to London and back on every day that he had official business. Something is fishy there.
• The only conclusion I can think of is that either the flat in London, or the travel expenses, or both are really to get him to board meetings or meetings of his job at Barclays.  it is not clear whether he also claims expenses from them too.   In my opinion either he is using official expenses to fraudulently enable him to get to his outside jobs, or he is financially incompetent enough to pay for both, or he just doesn’t care because it is not his money.
• The whole attitude of knowing that he can do this because he assumes, possibly correctly, that he can do whatever he likes because Horsham will not vote any other way but Tory.
• Having additional jobs at all has to be wrong.   When Parliament is on holiday and MPs are supposed to be in their constituency dealing with problems they should not be continuing to stay up in London on business.
• Where were the front page headlines?   This is similar to the Jacquie Smith business, except that her constituency is much further from London making a second home much more necessary and yet her claim for a second home was being proclaimed as a national scandal.
• The most personal objection I have to all this is that it just makes everybody think that I am standing because I want to jump on the same gravy train.   Nothing could be further from the truth because I really would not be able to live with my conscience if I was behaving like that.  I certainly would not have the bare-faced cheek to appear smirking in the local papers.

I can see no reason why a home counties MP needs more than one home, or why any MP needs more than one job.   In the unlikely event of me getting elected and finding out that Francis Maude is right I will apoligise – but I still wouldn’t expect the taxpaer to fund a place that will be unused for at least a third of the year.  I would stay in a hotel on the odd nights I had to and that would be that.

Gordon Brown is right to be pushing through changes to the system because it is rotten, although I am not sure about the idea of attendance allowances, not if it leads to the spectacle of the European Parliament where some MPs sign in and then disappear again.

For the last few months not a week has gone by when I haven’t received a letter or e-mail from someone who is struggling because they now find themselves without a job.

It does not help that Maude himself has six or seven jobs.  If he and his frontbench colleagues could stick to a single job each it wouldn’t just come across as crocodile tears.