UPDATE: I mistakenly thought Sarah Teather was the challenger here in the original wording of the post. Thanks to Luke Akehurst in the comments for putting me right!
Monday, September 01, 2008
Taxpayer Paying for Labour Canvassing
Mark Pack on LibDem Voice draws attention to Labour MP Glenda Jackson using the taxpayer funded Communications Allowance to solicit voting intention pledges. This is exactly what many of us warned this scandal of an allowance would be used for. Jackson's seat is under threat at the next election from Sarah Teather Tory candidate Chris Philp, I think, because of boundary changes. Any MP who uses the Communications Allowance for this sort of party political advantage needs hauling over the coals. I trust Ms Teather's Mr Philp's letter is already winging its way to the Commons authorities.
UPDATE: I mistakenly thought Sarah Teather was the challenger here in the original wording of the post. Thanks to Luke Akehurst in the comments for putting me right!
UPDATE: I mistakenly thought Sarah Teather was the challenger here in the original wording of the post. Thanks to Luke Akehurst in the comments for putting me right!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Sarah Teather is unlikely to care. She lost the selection battle for this seat to Hampstead Lib Dem Ed Fordham so she now has to fight Brent Central, a rather safer Labour seat, against Dawn Butler.
I think your own party would argue that in any case Chris Philp, the Tory candidate, is the main challenger to Glenda.
I trust, Mr. Akehurst, that your next line in that thought pattern was "Regardless of who cares most about the Hampstead & Kilburn battle, this is still an outrageous abuse of the communications allowance and Glenda Jackson should be hauled over the coals for it."?
The punishment should be that twice the total cost of this exercise plus the cost of investigating it is deducted from her Commons salary.
Plus, what about reducing the maximum legal spend by Glenda Jackson if she stands in any parliamentary seat at any time in the next five years? Say, 20% less than any other candidate.
Let's not get on our high horse my local Tory MP shameless plastered his name all over local public transport using his propaganda allowance. It's the allowance that's wrong full stop.
@mostly ordinary. I agree with you that the allowance itself is wrong, but a line has been crossed here.
Oh God Iain, this is one one of those issues that makes me especially livid.
Why would Labour change the funding rules to help incumbents??
What made you want to marry millionaire Paul Daniels??
Another thing that makes me especially livid is Luvvy Celebs who want a totalitarian one party state. It's so groovy man! I'm a sixties hip-chick an' I wanna make your life hell.
Thanks for reminding me just how much I want a Conservative government.
Luke: Look at the Thrasher & Rallings figures for the new boundaries: Labour 36%, Liberal Democrats 35%, Conservatives 23%.
I can see why Labour would be keen to talk up the Conservative vote mind you :-)
I hope they throw the book at her.
A big heavy one.
My (pedantic) thought on this is how depressingly inevitable it is that NuLab drongoes don't know when to use its/it's correctly. Hardly surprising they can't spend our money honestly.
I'll get me coat...
Sarah Teather didn't lose the selection in H&K - she chose to stand for Brent Central instead.
Watcher said...
"My (pedantic) thought on this is how depressingly inevitable it is that NuLab drongoes don't know when to use its/it's correctly."
Uh? Are you sure that you are on the right thread? Where is the misuse of it/it's here?
Iain, do you feel the same way about Conservative MP Stephen O’Brien using his Communications Allowance recently to promote Edward Timpson, the Conservative candidate for Crewe and Nantwich, Stephen Mosley, Conservative candidate for Chester and Graham Evans, Conservative candidate for Weaver Vale?
Here in Ealing the Council is using a lot of money for what is really Conservative propaganda, shielded by the phrase 'public information'.
Of course Glenda can use the Communications allowance. It is HER money after all!*
* not.
I am one of Glenda's constituents and received this glossy mag. Of course it's an abuse and also a sign of desperation given the state of the polls and the energetic campaigning by Chris Philps. What makes me rather more cross is that she has yet to reply to two letters I wrote to her about the Child Benefit data loss last year. If she has a Communications Allowance she ought to use it to communicate with those constituents who write to her. Still I have mixed feelings about Glenda: she is one of the few Labour MPs who has consistently voted against ID cards, 42-day detention and Labour's other illiberal measures and it will be a shame to lose her for that alone, especially as I fear that the Tories will do little or nothing to reverse Labour's attacks on our freedoms and creation of a Big Brother state.
Labour MP Chris Mole has been doing it in Ipswich for ages. Have a look at his expenses on communications. One of the largest in UK.
no, sarah teather's the intern.
Anonymous said...
"Labour MP Chris Mole has been doing it in Ipswich for ages. Have a look at his expenses on communications. One of the largest in UK."
The difference is that Chris Mole is using, not misusing, his communications allowance. He is simply making full use of it quite legitimately.
All the liars coming out here!
Luke Akehurst - Sarah Teather did not contest the H&K selection, she chose to go for Brent Central.
Ian Dale - nobody in their right mind thinks Tory Boy has got a chance here, that's why Mike Greene has cleared off to Bournemouth for a winnable seat. The Tories are in a poor third on the notional boundaries, they're only relevant in a handful of wards and cannot win.
Anon @ 8:36 AM
Have a look at the link. The small print talks about "Glenda Jackson, the Labour Party or it's elected representatives" - should be its.
If Mark Pack cares to look at the recent GLA results for the new H&K constituency, he will find that the Conservatives were first, Lab second and the Lib Dems a very poor third.
To all those arguing about what the boundary changes in this consituency mean in terms of party political advantage I'd say that your attitude is what is contributing to the death of democracy. I live in this area and I've only just seen the rejigged parliamentary boundaries and I'm hopping mad. Labour have blatently gerrimandered the boundaries. Centuries old local links have been changed so as to include some large estates well to the west of the area which Labour presumably hopes will swing the vote for them, while potentially Liberal and Tory voting areas have been exluded. My anger is only increased by the sense that both the Lib Dems and the Tories let them get away with it; there was absolutely no attempt to get local opinion stirred up just as there was no muscle showed before the Electoral Commission.
Watcher, my (pedantic) thought on this is how depressing it is that Tory drongoes don't make it clear that the grammatical errors they have found are not on this thread but are buried in a link.
Get a life.
Post a Comment