Key questions from a potential voter

The All Seeing Eye, a regular commenter on this blog has been kind enough to send me the following questions - its a meme set up by Daniel1979 on his blog, so here goes...

1. Has there ever been an occasion when you failed to notice that you have paid your mortgage off months, possibly years in advance, and just had not realised?
No - it beggars belief that anyone wouldn't notice unless they were a) incompetent; b) had some ulterior motive, possibly criminal; or c) both a & b.

2. Does your property contain a moat?
No, but I do have a small fish pond where Boris the sturgeon lurks among the goldfish

3. Do you think you could in good conscience accept a salary and allowances whilst not actually attending your place of work or office?
No, because being found out would be embarrassing

4. If you were told that it was within the rules to go jump off a cliff, would you do it? No, I'm capable of independent thought

5. Are you able to tell the difference between a room in a house, and an actual house? Yes, which my explain why I am not Home Secretary

6. Are you able to commute a distance under 35 miles for work purposes without the need for an additional house being provided? Yes - I'm lucky that I live quite close to my work but I know hard working, normal people who have to commute 100 miles each way every day to keep the pay cheque coming in

7. Do you know what an Iron is? Are you having a laugh? RN basic training taught me not only to dhobi and iron, but also fold everything "book size". Mrs B usually irons my work shirts though, and a fantastic job she makes of it too

8. Is your TV or Stereo likely to need an upgrade in the next 5 years? Yes, and I'll pay for it myself

9. Do you have a warped sense of humour OR Do you have a helipad? I don't even have an allocated car parking space!!

10. If you did need two houses to live and work, do you think it possible to designate one as a main home, and stick by that decision for the duration of that employment? Maybe, but if I did sell a second home I wouldn't evade CGT

11. If you work in a different place to where you live – do you find yourself, or could you envision, eating twice as much food as you would if you lived more locally to work? Twice as much??? I'd explode like Mr Creosote

12. Do you know what a pergola is? No, but its probably curable with a shot of penicillin

New website for the Jury Team South West

The six candidates in the South West are working together to get the Jury Team message across - even though we are all fiercely independent in our views, we are also committed to working together for the common good. This co-operative working, while maintaining individual independence is our great strength....and its the way we'll work in Brussels, unlike the other MEPs who are effectively shackled by party alliances.

Have a look at http://www.juryteamsouthwest.eu/ and let us know what you think

Mark Thomas, I salute you...

Mark Thomas is a comedian, presenter, political activist, investigative reporter and the holder of a Guinness World Record.

On 14th May, lawyers acting on Mark's behalf served legal papers on Speaker Martin. As the chair for the House of Commons Commission, he should take urgent steps to commence a review of the department's actions in dealing with MPs' applications for expenses. These should include an independent audit of expenses and the forced repayment of wrongly claimed expenses; and in cases of fraudulent claims, the police should be called in. Speaker Martin has 14 days to respond. If he does not, Mark will instigate a judicial review of Speaker Martin's decision, on the legal grounds that public law should be consistent. MPs should not be allowed to be above the law and what is good enough for us is good enough for them.

On his website, Mark says “MPs are not above the law. If they have wrongly claimed expenses they should be made to repay. If they have acted fraudulently the police should be involved. This is what would happen to all of us as members of the public if we tried to fiddle public money.
Fraudulent benefit claimants are not allowed to form committees comprised of benefit claimants to investigate their misdemeanours. Nor can exposed tax cheats offer to pay back money because they are ‘concerned about how it looks to the outside world’ and then walk away with no repercussion.
If I need to go to court I will be making a public appeal to cover the legal costs of the case, which I’m sure will have overwhelming support!”

Further details can be found on Mark's page in the Guardian - it was also featured on the BBC Daily Politics show.

Independent candidates get results

On 11th May, I wrote to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police demanding investigations into the expenses activities of some MPs.

Since my letter, the Met has received a high volume of similar complaints, from a range of sources including the Taxpayers Alliance, Daily Mail, the Mayor of Middlesbrough Ray Mallon and countless individuals. Even Boris Johnson has commented "Frankly, looking at some of these cases it looks to me as though Plod needs to come in," he told Sky News.
"I must be careful what I say here because I am chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority, but it looks to me as though some people may very well have a serious case to answer."

Tonight the Met have issued the following statement:
"A joint statement by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) relating to allegations of misuse of parliamentary expenses:
Before the recent media exposure about alleged misuse of parliamentary expenses, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner instigated meetings between the MPS and CPS in relation to a number of allegations made to police.

Due to the increase in subsequent allegations received by the MPS, the Commissioner and Director of Public Prosecutions have decided jointly to convene a panel to assess allegations in order to advise on whether criminal investigations should be started.

A panel, comprising officers and a senior CPS lawyer, will commence a series of meetings next week.

Bulletin 0000001284
15 May 2009"

Take care to avoid a penalty....

I haven't blogged much this week, as I've been watching the expenses story continue to unfold. This week has give us a rush of party leaders and dodgy MPs queuing up to say "sorry" on primetime TV. Lets be straight here - THE ONLY THING THEY ARE SORRY ABOUT IS GETTING CAUGHT.

There is a changing public mood (I have never seen an edition of BBC's Question Time like last nights - although Margaret Beckett would seem to have a new career as a panto villain sewn up when the voters of voters of Derby South tell her to take her hanging baskets and sling her hook). Jury Team candidates are in a fantastic position to offer the electorate a real, positive choice.

As well as the rush to apologise, there also appears to be a sudden clamouring within the political elite to bring new standards of transparency and decency in public life. SORRY FOLKS, TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE

Is it a mere co-incidence that they seem to have discovered basic morality only after the Daily Telegraph started exposing their excesses? This is fundamentally why Jury Team candidates are different; By entering the text vote primary, all Jury Team candidates explicitly accepted the principle that "Politicians should fully comply with the Nolan Principles of Public Life and have externally decided and transparent remuneration". The Jury Team text primary ran from 16th March to 24th April. The Daily Telegraph ran with the scoop on 8th May. The evidence is clear - Jury Team Independent candidates base their position on principle and conviction - career politicians of all parties simply say what they think the public wants to hear, and even then, only when they are effectively backed into a corner.

I am particularly disgusted by the process of "flipping" properties, not only to maximise the allowances that can be claimed, but also to cynically avoid Capital Gains Tax. I don't particularly like stumping up my hard earned cash to the Revenue any more than the next man, however I accept that paying tax is an obligation and public duty - I want to live in a society which educates the young, looks after the sick and disabled, supports those in need, and gives the elderly dignity in their retirement. Schools, hospitals, pensions, social-security, defence - they all cost money, and that money has to be raised through taxes. In my book, manipulating the system to avoid paying tax thats due is morally repugnant. The sight of Hazel Blears and Greg Barker waving cheques around to apparently pay HMRC the money they supposedly "don't owe" (?) in unpaid Capital Gains Tax is truly bizarre. If they dont owe the tax, why are they paying it (especially as HMRC has a statutory duty to only take payment where it is due) - on the other hand if they do owe the tax, where is the interest and penalty charges? I'll be writing to the Revenue to ask them......

Letter to The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police

Now the Telegraph has turned the spotlight on members of the Conservative Party and also the smaller parties such as Sinn Fein, it is becoming clear that the abuse of the allowances system is endemic across the political spectrum. Following massive public concern, HMRC have announced that they are actively looking into whether any tax has been evaded - I trust that their investigations will be thorough and rigourous as I sense the public mood will not accept a fudge.

By their actions, some MPs have critically damaged faith in the democratic system in the UK. This boil must be lanced, and the only way to do this is to hold them fully accountable for their actions. I have therefore written the following letter to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service:


Sir Paul Stephenson
Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service
New Scotland Yard
Broadway
London
SW1H 0BG
11th May 2009
Dear Commissioner Stephenson,

In light of recent press coverage of the expenses claimed by MPs from a number of political parties, does the Metropolitan Police Service intend to launch investigations into whether criminal activity has taken place, particularly in relation to s.2 of the Fraud Act 2006, or any other relevant legislation?

The “Green Book 2006” published by the House of Commons Department of Finance & Administration is clear in section 3 that Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) can only be claimed for “... expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying
overnight away from their main UK residence (referred to below as their main home) for the purpose of performing Parliamentary duties. This excludes expenses that have been incurred for purely personal or political purposes.”

The “Green Book” is also clear in its guidance to claimants that “It is your responsibility to satisfy yourself when you submit a claim...have been wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the purpose of performing...parliamentary duties”

A number of the press revelations, if accurate, would appear to fail these tests. Given that this issue crosses the political spectrum, I would be grateful for your assurance that if any investigations are undertaken, they will be conducted without fear or favour, and any criminal behaviour will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,


William Barnett
Jury Team Independent Candidate for the South West
Region, in the European Parliamentary Elections, 2009.
bill@southwestindependent.eu
www.southwestindependent.eu

A number of the MPs highlighted in the media have used the smokescreen that they have "acted within the rules" - I do not buy this, the rules are clear and are noted above. The other excuse that is being put forward is that it is the system that is wrong, and the blame lies with some poor bloody civil servant in the fees office. Again the rules are clear - the responsibility lies with the claimant.

Whether an offence under s.2 of the Fraud Act 2006 has taken place may hang on whether action was taken "dishonestly". In my view, MPs are caught between a rock and a hard place - in making these claims they are either dishonest or incompetant, there can be no other alternative. Either way, dishonest or incompetant, they have no place in public life - we deserve better representatives!

Harriet Harman recently raised the concept of the "court of public opinion" - well that court is being called to order on June 4th for its first hearing, the European and local elections. Sometime in the next year, it will hear its second case, the UK General election.

In the court of public opinion, every man and woman with the vote forms the Jury. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, if you stay at home and do not exercise your vote, or you cast your vote for ANY party, you are condoning at best incompetance, and at worst criminality. Use your vote to send down the whole party system - vote for Independent candidates who are committed to representing your interests, not those of their party or themselves. Vote Jury Team.

STOP PRESS!!!!! South West Independent Anti-Sleaze MEP Candidate launches new election strategy

Hat Tip to Alan Wallace, Jury Team Scotland