political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Barbara Follett Accused of Failing to Register Donations...by Her Husband!
Thanks to the reader who alerted me to THIS story on The Huntsman blog. It concerns Labour MP Barbara Follett and her non declaration of donations. Are they ALL at it, or does it just seem that way?!
On the face ofthe evidence presented by the terrier-like Huntsman, it seems that la Follett is indeed guilty as (should be) charged. delicious that her husband dropped her in it. And yes, Iain, it does seem that they are all 'at it'. While one might argue that the law is serpentine at best and downright complex at worst, any politician drawing a salary, allowances and the rest at public expense, and accepting donations, support, subsidies, whatever the weasel words are, should jolly well make it their business to understand, and to take such advice as may be necessary for them to understand, the intricacies of electoral law. The 'I didn't know and it wasn't my fault' won't wash with the great unwashed who pay their salaries, eye-watering expenses and allowances and the rest.
Incidentally, the Follett folly is a prime example which lends weight to my long-held belief that all MPs' office facilities, staff etc should be provided centrally by the House of Commons, so that the question of use of office and other allowances, subsidies from rich author spouses and the rest simply doesn't arise. There's a perfectly good argument for ensuring that all MPs are properly resourced at public expense, rather like any company provides resources abnd facilities to its employees, rather than paying them to hire their own staff and assistants. This should be part of any MP remuneration reform package. It won't of course, because they all like having their snouts in the publicy-funded trough.
I saw that edition of Sunday AM and remember thinking at the time if Mr Follett was handing over so much money just how many staff is Mrs Follett employing.
I was not sure back then if money from the family of the MP would constitute a donation, especially if it came from a joint account. It probably has a different complexion now.
Isn't she a director of Emily's List which has 'assisted' at least 52 women in election campaigns? I believe she is one of the women MP's consequently that Nadine Dorries has complained about to the Parliamentary Standards guy Philip Mawer because only women who agree to supporting Pro Life (abortion Issues) are sponsored by Emily's List
Do new MPs not get a nice little pamphlet outlining what they should and should not declare? I know that newly elected councillors get a lecture on not using the photocopiers for party stuff etc, is it the same for MPs?
And if they don't get a guide, why are the party admins not telling them?
The Conservatives should IMO be advancing the argument that there never was any Conservative sleaze, on the basis that the people who said there was are all Labour scum who are absolutely up to their own rancid necks in it.
Labour's claims of "Tory sleaze" reminds me very much of the other side's defence in a court case a few years ago at which I was an expert witness. Essentially, their argument was:-
You lot are crooks, and we know this because we used to work for you and we are crooks.
They lost.
But essentially that is what LAbour has always done with its invented sleaze stories.
10 comments:
Iain,
Wonderful. Correct me, but is there a law which says that the law does not apply to socialists? Otherwise, why should all these cheats NOT go to jail?
As it happens I work in the financial services industry and am subject to very similar laws. I abide by them.
On the face ofthe evidence presented by the terrier-like Huntsman, it seems that la Follett is indeed guilty as (should be) charged. delicious that her husband dropped her in it. And yes, Iain, it does seem that they are all 'at it'. While one might argue that the law is serpentine at best and downright complex at worst, any politician drawing a salary, allowances and the rest at public expense, and accepting donations, support, subsidies, whatever the weasel words are, should jolly well make it their business to understand, and to take such advice as may be necessary for them to understand, the intricacies of electoral law. The 'I didn't know and it wasn't my fault' won't wash with the great unwashed who pay their salaries, eye-watering expenses and allowances and the rest.
Incidentally, the Follett folly is a prime example which lends weight to my long-held belief that all MPs' office facilities, staff etc should be provided centrally by the House of Commons, so that the question of use of office and other allowances, subsidies from rich author spouses and the rest simply doesn't arise. There's a perfectly good argument for ensuring that all MPs are properly resourced at public expense, rather like any company provides resources abnd facilities to its employees, rather than paying them to hire their own staff and assistants. This should be part of any MP remuneration reform package. It won't of course, because they all like having their snouts in the publicy-funded trough.
I saw that edition of Sunday AM and remember thinking at the time if Mr Follett was handing over so much money just how many staff is Mrs Follett employing.
I was not sure back then if money from the family of the MP would constitute a donation, especially if it came from a joint account. It probably has a different complexion now.
Isn't she a director of Emily's List which has 'assisted' at least 52 women in election campaigns? I believe she is one of the women MP's consequently that Nadine Dorries has complained about to the Parliamentary Standards guy Philip Mawer because only women who agree to supporting Pro Life (abortion Issues) are sponsored by Emily's List
Excellent and thorough piece of research.
What are the chances of a straightforward reply?
Do new MPs not get a nice little pamphlet outlining what they should and should not declare? I know that newly elected councillors get a lecture on not using the photocopiers for party stuff etc, is it the same for MPs?
And if they don't get a guide, why are the party admins not telling them?
As he cannot be a compelable witness against his wife ,I doubt if this will run, unfortunately.
Incorrect, anonymous 3.16pm.
It is a simple matter of figures. She has to declare. If she hasn't= a problem!
It is purely down to her.
He may be asked and he has to be careful he does not perjure himself.
It could get very messy.
Hilarious. But sadly nothing will be done about it.
The Conservatives should IMO be advancing the argument that there never was any Conservative sleaze, on the basis that the people who said there was are all Labour scum who are absolutely up to their own rancid necks in it.
Labour's claims of "Tory sleaze" reminds me very much of the other side's defence in a court case a few years ago at which I was an expert witness. Essentially, their argument was:-
You lot are crooks, and we know this because we used to work for you and we are crooks.
They lost.
But essentially that is what LAbour has always done with its invented sleaze stories.
Post a Comment