Sinn Féin’s “disclosure” of figures already in public domain
Without pre-empting Mick’s thoughts on Sinn Féin’s statement “in the interests of full disclosure” there are a few points worth noting. Firstly the amounts of money involved are already known or would be published anyway – the figures [for all MPs] going back to 2004 are online here. And a number of MPs do not avail of the recently introduced Communications Allowance including some, but not all, DUP MPs. Here the pdf of last year’s allowances claimed.What the SF statement seems to be targetted at is the Additional Costs Allowance
From the MPs Green Book,
“The Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) reimburses Members of Parliament 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.”
For some MPs those costs include food.
But Sinn Féin’s arrangements involved their 5 MPs claiming back £108,000 last year for two rented properties with all costs apparently covered [including "cleaning" and "laundry"]. [Adds Exact amount claimed for 2007/8 = £105,131]
Whether they had stayed there or not.
The maximum ACA amount allowed in 2007/8 would have been 5 x £23,083 = £115,415.
From the Green Book again.
3.3.1. Principles
You must ensure that arrangements for your ACA claims are above reproach and that there can be no grounds for a suggestion of misuse of public money. Members should bear in mind the need to obtain value for money from accommodation, goods or services funded from the allowances.
3.3.2.
You must avoid any arrangement which may give rise to an accusation that you are, or someone close to you is, obtaining an immediate benefit or subsidy from public funds or that public money is being diverted for the benefit of a political organisation.
Of course, they are treated differently to everybody else. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be able to claim the expenses they do. But they have neglected to mention the other allowances they can avail of, which covers the cost of policy formulation, in Ireland. [4 x €48,547 = €194,188]
Then there are the millions from elsewhere..
“truth is more useful than balance”
or possibly facts Mick, the facts are that 5 SF MPs rent 2 properties in London.
with regards to the neighbours they said that although they hadn’t seen the MPs often, lots of young professions came and went from the house, are the rules structured that only the MP (and family) my use the property or can it be used by the MPs staff if on Parlimentary business.
Its curious because the Telegraph went quite deep on this story investigating rental values and the MPs attendence at the properties, but, made no comment about the use of the townhouse by others.
Another curious fact is that they spoke to a estate agent, a single individual, to find the ‘true’ rental value, yet most people renting or buying a property would use one of several property websites available. Is the use of a third person a ploy to avoid responsibility for the figure given.
Fin,
None of that concerns me, though it may become pertinent later. I’m concerned about what we actually know about the case, not what is hearsay and partial.
fin,
the British parties have been caught with their fingers in the till – and with the exception of the UU supporter New Blue not a single non-nationalist poster (that I have seen ) on Slugger has had the fair mindedness to praise SF for their policy which is designed to avoid this type of corruption and potential loss of faith in their elected leaders.
The ‘whataboutery’ of the ‘editorial’ line is very disappointing.
Mick, the facts are that 5 SF MPs rent 2 properties between them, do we know any other facts?
I agree totally Sammy, I also think the Telegraph publishing the SF expenses first with added spin from an anon estate agent was done for a reason, had they been last on the list and only the facts published it would have been a non-story.
Fin,
One of them did not use his in a year. The others, from their records, barely went to London on Parliamentary business; yet someone is drawing rent from them for two flats they barely use.
Further Pete outlines at the top why this might be considered a breach of the rules as they already stand.
First? Not if my own recollection is correct. We’re about 9/10 days into this story. I think the SF only hit the front page on day 3 (though I’ll happily take a correction on that). This is a side show to where the real political action is, but an important one nonetheless.
The public interest is clear enough, a prima facae case of nonfeasance/misfeasance.
Sam,
Look at the story at the top. It’s about SF’s claims, not the Robo’s, or the mainstream UK parties’. Google ‘whataboutery’ if you are in any doubt as to what it means.
Mick, I could be wrong, I thought SF were the first party profiled.
Are the MPs the only ones allowed to use the properties, ie if a member of the MPs staff travel to London on Parlimentary business are they barred from using the property and obliged to book into a hotel.
The reason I ask is in one of the pdf docs linked SF staff have made numerous journeys, possibly to London, no idea on duration.
As I said previously the neigbours are quoted as saying “….that the yellow-brick house was a rental property where young professionals appeared to come and go”
Mick urges Sam to familiarise himself with a clearer understanding of ‘whataboutery’ and suggests that in order to see that this thread is not in this category he should, “Look at the story at the top. It’s about SF’s claims, not the Robo’s,…”.
But it is precisely the timing of the “story” (or thread rather) which makes some of us read a deal of ‘whataboutery’ into it, seeing that timing, days after the revelations of SF’s expenses had been debated to death and when now the Robinson’s were in the firing line and it was clear that there was anger all across the board at their claims, what happens?
Why Pete comes back into the fray with a nicely timed deflection which we might suppose with charity was designed ‘to restore balance’ but might just suspect was designed to take the heat of the Robinson’s and give succour those very ‘whataboutery’ enthusiasts who might just happen to wear unionist blinkers.
Furthermore Pete has NOT demonstrated that SF’s property rentals are a breach of the rules as they already stand, nor could he have in fact for their is no evidence available in the public domain to support such a charge, nor given that the two properties are made available on constant standby for the use of five MP’s and their aides is there likely to be any evidence other than shows good stewardship and accomodation management on the party’s behalf.
And, I say again, it is the example of this prudence that rankles most for the way it exposes the shortcomings and self-serving of others and thus yet another feeble attempt to not only include SF among the general body of rotters but somehow to make them appear worse in order that the real rotters might silently slope off while we are so diverted.
Rory
Thank you for your latest attempt at mind-reading.
But if you have a problem with the timing of my post I’d suggest you take that up with Gerry Adams.
This post, after all, was in response to his statement.
Rory, how is paying three times the going rate an example of ‘the exercise of good judgment, common sense, and even caution, especially in the conduct of practical matters’?
Where do the proceeds of republican organised crime feature in the political arrangements of the Provisional Republican Movement? Do you suppose Gerry Adams would tell us? Would you believe him?
Mick,
“Look at the story at the top. It’s about SF’s claims, not the Robo’s, or the mainstream UK parties’. Google ‘whataboutery’ if you are in any doubt as to what it means. ”
In my previous post I specifically asked if you accepted that the ‘story’ relating to SFs rental arrangements was essentially and qualitatively different from those relating to the trousering of dosh by the mainland political parties. Your answer, such as it was, is and example of ‘whataboutery’ in that it simply ignores the question and again directs us back to the ‘allegations’ against SF.
Pete has often struggled with presenting the facts in their correct context and seems to believe that if enough attention is given to detail (an old spin doctor trick) the bigger picture will be obscured. This thread, dealing as it does with the position of a political party on the expenses fiasco should clearly put the ALLEGATIONS against them in the context of the overall debate of PROVEN/ADMITTED wrong doing.
Rory. Dear Rory. New releases, like cinema releases, no longer are a viable way to control the way people consume news. When I was a kid, you could only expect to see a US film six months after it was released in Hollywood (USA that is).
Digital technology has changed all that. General release now more or less has to be worldwide, because otherwise you give the pirates and endlessly copyable DVDs a free reign in markets you used to make wait for 6 months or a year.
In politics, the whole news cycle has been disrupted. Leave blog out of it for a moment, that means the most successful players in the news market are those who provide niche services and are able to stick with stories long after the generalist publications have had to put their journalists to other uses.
Blustering through a story and then waiting for the cycle to past, is no longer viable strategy in a digital age, where everything can (where there is a will) be remembered (like the Robo quote above from four years ago).
Sam,
Go and read your own post again, this time combing for the sleight of hand…
Mick,
when the plain English chappies come knocking on your door armed with a warrant I take it you wont be too suprised?
Sam,
I’ll pass them on to you Sam…
Mick,
well you are a game fecker at least.
Rory, look at 3.3.1. Principles in the thread’s topic. It imposes a responsibility on members “to obtain value for money from accommodation”. How you can whistle out of every orifice you fancy in your self-appointed role as Shinner apologist, but you can’t make it stick that paying 257% higher than market value for Gerry and Martin’s trough and 300% higher than market value for the other trough is “value for money” and therefore not a breach of the rules. The Shinners accept that have paid over the odds but they’re trying to claim that they did so to include expenses that they were not entitled to claim under the rule. Own goal. They should now be forced to repay the difference.
“I’ll pass them on to you Sam…
”
Is this what is meant by touting?
So Mick, Dave and Nevin, your arguement is based on an unknown question to an unknown estate agent, and this you call facts to damn SF. Can you tell me what area we are talking about, what standard of accommadation and what question was asked of the estate agent, who was the estate agent and what did he based he answer on. FFS I spoke to a bloke in the pub today and he said SF have come out of this smelling of roses, so can you now change your arguement to reflect this new response from an unknown man in the street. Whoops, no, because the answer doesn’t fit for you,
Fin,
The DT story you keep referring to has NO bearing whatsoever on my argument.
And you post the same public perception question I’ve been refusing to answer from Sammy.
We know from experience that public perception and reality can be far removed from one another (Pete was excoriated here for over a year for his deadline/timetable distinction on devolution of P&J until he was proven right, and Gerry and Martin wrong by how events actually passed).
Pertinent facts consist of: 1 MP admitting he only stayed one night in a flat rented under the understanding it was for his use; little evidence of the flat rented by other MPs used for their original purpose.
It is also relevant that said MP is also a Minister in an Executive which is being asked to make significant savings.
Mick,
“Pete was excoriated here for over a year for his deadline/timetable distinction on devolution of P&J until he was proven right, and Gerry and Martin wrong by how events actually passed”
Self Praise is no…etc and the above is self-serving nonsense. Pete and you consistently (and deliberately) missed the actual politics of the situation on this by not recognising that the DUP could slow down the process but would have to yield to SF and British government pressure on the issue as was pointed out to both of you repeatedly and which both of you dismissed as ‘futuring’. In November Robbo set the process underway after precisely that pressure.
So back to your next exercise in deflection. There is feck all comparison between allegedly not obtaining value for money and trousering money for personal gain. It is quite silly to try and hide behind some self-serving-crpyto-journalistic-principle and start talking in tongues rather than answer a simple question.
Get a fecking grip on your-editorial-knickers.
Mick, I can’t believe that you and pete can actually get this one so wrong and be so out of touch. You guys need a holiday or something, I don’t think you have a clue about this, I mean, even your ridiculous obsession with 3.3.1 is wrong.
For a start Conor Murphy and the other SF MPs have made available this accommodation for their staff so to create the impression that this one property has been lying empty bar one visit from Conor Murphy is disingenuous. It’s used by the SF MP’s and their staff, even the bloody Telegraph admit people are coming and going.
In the course of all the negotiations in the last few years SF have a clear need for accommodation to be ready at the drop of a hat. It’s ridiculous to suggest they could go to a hotel especially given their very real security concerns.
thirdly I wouldn’t be surprised if, as suggested before, some of these costs are down to security and electronic sweeping. Perhaps if British Intelligence didn’t have such a track record of snooping on elected representatives then you could dismiss this. However, we know that the British have tried and mostly likely still do. In this context I think it’s entirely fair that the privacy of their business be protected, at tax payer expense. For fairly obvious reasons they’re unlikely to talk about this.
Finally as has also been mentioned, are we to seriously base all our arguments on the word of an estate agent (a big ask at the best of times) picked by the SF loathing, Telegraph??? Get real.
In addition to all of that, despite what you think about how they have broken the rules their constituency won’t give a shit and that’s the only concern for anyone in this whole mess.
If this is the best of the rebuttal SF can muster they are in deep doo-doo
But Sammy, you were wrong in every single aspect of that story. You even gave us dates even after the May ‘deadline’ (end of 08 as I recall).
Pete, to my certain knowledge has never expressed a view on what should happen or what is likely to happen. Even after the 154 missing days, nothing visible has shifted, but that is not to imply that it never will. The key is that the DUP will decide, not Brown, Adams or Cameron.
That has not changed since the night Gerry did that marathon run abour the news studios waving a piece of paper with the 8th May last year written on it claiming otherwise.
Now you are majoring on a side question, ie which is the bigger crime: personal trousering or corporate trousering?
Answer: I don’t care. I care about each story as it arises. If you ask me to ‘future’ about this one, I’d say it won’t do the party any harm in its base, but it will do some marginal damage in the suburbs where people care more about tax burdens (and that concern will grow as taxpayer’s both sides of the border carry the burden of bailing out bankers long into the future). Yellow voters going white, rather than green turning yellow. Medium term, it has probably killed off Sinn Fein’s negotiated special status at Westminster.
As for the esoteric comparisons with the abuse of personal allowances, that is in some ways a more interesting story with a completely separate dynamic of its own. British politicians are talking big consequences, and that 19% rating for UKIP may only be the tip of a nasty European iceberg.
The Week In Westminster tonight had a very interesting exchange between Dan Hannan, Richard Corbett and Caroline Lucas. Well worth catching up with. But I don’t for moment intend letting it obscure the questions raised by SF’s quite different set of problems arising from this ‘scandal’..
Night all… I have work to do before bed…
One of them did not use his in a year. The others, from their records, barely went to London on Parliamentary business; yet someone is drawing rent from them for two flats they barely use.
Presumably the contract is in place before usage rates were known; presumably also any party ir standards committees could have objected any time And we are back at – is it reasonable for SF to want a permanent base of operations rather than hotels, especially during peace process negotiations? If you can honestly say yes then this issue muddies a lot. And still unlikely to do the big damage things like flipping have.
The question of whether staff on parliamentary business are entitled to use the property also seems a quite important question here, Mick. You are the one with the contacts, how about getting some answers for a change.
Mick,
“Pete, to my certain knowledge has never expressed a view on what should happen or what is likely to happen. Even after the 154 missing days, nothing visible has shifted, but that is not to imply that it never will. The key is that the DUP will decide, not Brown, Adams or Cameron.”
The DUP even admitted – directly after they signalled movement on this issue in November – that they had to play ball or risk papal influnce from the ROI.
The idea that Unionism would be allowed to hold up progress on the GFA/STA indefinitely is a nonsense and one of the few things we can thank an otherwise fairly disappointing Labour party for.
Yes, I was wrong about how long the DUP could obstruct progress for just as you and Pete were wrong about the substantive issue that they would be pressurised into playing ball and instead indulged in a bout of pin-head dancing about timtables/deadlines that a political Michael Flatley would have been proud of.
re. “Now you are majoring on a side question” the personal morality of politicans is at the very heart of this story – whether someone is on the make is absolutely central to the issue and pretending otherwise simply smacks of arguements of ideological convienience.
Right, I know this is pulling me away from paid work, but…
Yes, you were wrong Sammy. Consistently, and absolutely. The pinhead in question related to that is a timetable a deadline thing. It got dull and boring because of the amount of times the falsehood – that the two were the same – was repeated as though it were true.
“Whether someone is on the make” or ‘some party’?
We all done here then?
Mick,
oh, I nearly forgot – my favourite bit of that debate was when the SOS told the DUP that those holding up the transfer of police were endangering peace and because this didnt fit in with Pete’s analysis – ie that the DUP were free to make up their own minds about the issue – he actually published what the SOS said and crossed out all the words he didnt like. To be fair, all that pinhead dancing can take its toll.