Skip to main content

Nailing the Labour Lie

Labour have just started delivering a dishonest newspaper in the Yardley Constituency.

There are a number of false and misleading items in that newspaper, but one is so spectacularly false that it warrants an immediate response.

The claim is that "while people here are forced to foodbanks". I made an expenses claim for subsistance or food.  They then say "Why were you paying for his dinner."

The facts are easy to find.  Firstly there are two foodbanks that serve people living in Yardley.  The only one actually in Yardley is in Stechford and opened on Friday February 28th 2014.   The other one is in Sparkhill and was I believe created some time in 2011.

It is slightly more complicated finding out what I have claimed for dinner.   The new rules came in at the start of the 2010 financial year (just before the new parliament).

There is a link from which the aggregated expenditure can be identified here:
Those summary figures, however, include subsistance (food) within travel. So to find out whether or not I am claiming for food costs you need to go into a further level of detail.
Here are the details for: 2010
You can then look through the travel claims which are almost entirely claims for saver returns (which is why I am the most cost effective MP in Birmingham from a travel costs perspective).
It is, of course, possible to search to find out which MPs claim subsistance. From this you can find:
Labour MP Liam Byrne has claimed for dinner in parliament
Labour MP Roger Godsiff has claimed for dinner in parliament (on page 3)

So to conclude. In this parliament I have not claimed once for dinner on the taxpayer. In theory Labour's leaflet only covers since 2011 when the foodbank in Sparkhill Started, but in fact I have not claimed for dinner at all in the 2010-2015 parliament. On the other hand two neighbouring Labour MPs have claimed for dinner "while local people are forced to foodbanks".
The rules changed in 2010. It is possible to see my claims before 2010. I took a decision in April 2009 to stop claiming second home and subsistance expenses (it was not lumped in with travel then).
The 2009-10/11 figures can be found here. You will find a single claim for 651.43 which is the half yearly service charge. I could, in that year, have claimed £4,800 for subsistance (food) as well as an additional over £15,000 for other second home expenses. However, I decided as my contribution to the cuts necessary to resolve the country's financial problems to stop claiming the second home expenses. I could have claimed £4,800 just for dinner and did not claim a penny of that - although obviously I still had heavy costs. (The budget was an annual one not a monthly one)   Prior to that I had claimed second home expenses (including subsistance) In May 2009 I did an analysis of the second home (including subsistance/food) costs of all the Birmingham MPs and the figures were as follows:
John Hemming 59601
Lynne Jones 60163
Steve McCabe 61803
Gisela Stuart 73079
Clare Short 74500
Liam Byrne 84978
Richard Burden 86324
Roger Godsiff 90956
Andrew Mitchell 92822
Sion Simon 103259
Khalid Mahmood 104676

Hence not only am I the most cost effective MP in Birmingham in the 2010-15 parliament, but also I was the most cost effective MP in Birmingham in the 2005-2010 parliament.   I have not claimed for dinner/food/subsistance in this parliament even once - notwithstanding Labour's clearly dishonest allegation that I have.  Therefore I have obviously not claimed for dinner "while people here are forced to foodbanks" (which can only be from 2011 because there were no foodbanks dealing with Yardley before then).  In fact I did not even claim for subsistance in the 2009-10 financial year.  The situation before the financial crisis is, of course, different, but even then I was the most cost effective MP in Birmingham for second home costs.


Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…