Tom Levitt's Expenses

Friends of Levitt come out to support 'Making Allowances' - and bend the truth

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:48:00 +0000

It's a been a little while now since Tom Levitt performed his one-man play 'Making Allowances', and it's true to say that it wasn't exactly a huge success in terms of garnering widespread attention. Whilst the BBC certainly seemed to over-indulge Levitt, what with several slots on Radio 4, plus the Politics Show piece, it was somehow fitting that the only real mainstream reaction came from the Sunday Telegraph, which can be read here.

The review is largely sympathetic, but does suggest the audience should perhaps be throwing eggs, or that he should turn it into panto ("Jack and the Beancounters").

To find reviews elsewhere, you really do have to scrape the bottom of the internet's barrel. With less than 140 characters, one finds a tweet by Martin Rosenbaum, a producer of political documentaries, who considered the play "a bit unpolished but thoughtful, amusing, well-performed, nice twist at end" (not having seen the play, we're imagining that the 'twist' doesn't involve a contrite Levitt seeking redemption via suicide).

We also have a long review by a self-declared "old friend" of Levitt, one Wiktor Moszczynski, whose blog declares that Levitt was "innocent" of the allegations levelled at him by both "reactionary and plebian (sic) accusers". We're proud to be plebs Wiktor! But perhaps you should have read this blog first? Wiktor's blog goes on to defend the vile un-seated former immigration minister, Phil Woolas, so it's clear where he's coming from.

Even worse is the comment left on the blog by a Linda Lewis, who we are reliably informed is an old friend of Levitt. She spends a large amount of time performing an Orwellian whitewash regarding Levitt's mortgage claims, suggesting the civil servants had got it wrong, and that Levitt was in the clear. Yet we all know that Levitt over-claimed for his mortgage, something he has not denied. Lewis goes on to suggest that ordinary people get treated with sympathy for fraud, and that such as Levitt got a harder time because he was an MP. Only someone who calls themselves a friend of this man could believe such nonsense.

But there we are - one hopes these rather limited reactions spell the end of the whole matter, although Levitt and his producer, Chris Mellor, are threatening to take the play on a nationwide tour. We'll be waiting if he decides to perform in the High Peak.

Levitt appears on the BBC's 'Politics Show' promoting 'Making Allowances'

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:41:00 +0000

You can see the recording of Tom Levitt appearing on the BBC's Politics Show, which was broadcast yesterday, above. In short order, we'll be back with some comments, as well as one or two reviews of the show we've stumbled across.

Levitt appears on Radio 4's 'PM' to promote 'Making Allowance'

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 20:35:00 +0000

Tom Levitt appeared again on Radio 4 yesterday, on their popular 'PM' evening news programme, picking up free promotion for his play 'Making Allowance'. The reporter, Becky Milligan, had blogged about her encounter with Levitt at a rehearsal prior to the audio version appearing on the show last night.

We'd be interested to know if any of our sources out there know who the character of Kevin in the play is based upon - seemingly a local Labour Party activist who confronted Levitt about his expenses. The Labour Chief Whip at the time of the expenses scandal was Nick Brown, someone who certainly bears no resemblance to the character Levitt portrays here, but is perhaps modelled on someone else.

Of future interest should be the producer of the play, a certain Chris Mellor. In last week's Advertiser and Glossop Chronicle (neither article is online), he revealed he was a former Glossop resident. His current job is Senior Arts Development Officer at Camden Council. We wonder how Camden residents would feel that the Council is putting their council tax into supporting Levitt's extreme act of vanity?

As usual, an mp3 recording of the programme segment and a full transcript can be read after the 'read more' link.

Eddy Mair: We've got the story now of a man who was a Labour MP for 13 years until the last election. Tom Levitt stood down after being exposed as claiming £16.50 for the cost of a poppy wreath laid on remembrance Sunday. Now he's written a play: Becky Milligan (BM) caught up with him during rehearsals.

BM: I'm in a community centre in North London where I think upstairs that I'm going to find Tom Levitt, former MP - now actor - and he's in rehearsals at the moment.

(sound of producer and Levitt conversing)

BM: Tom Levitt didn't stand in the last election after the expenses fiasco. He's written a play in which he acts. Chris Mellor, his producer, is taking him through his paces - scripts lie on the floor, as prompts.

(producer talking to Levitt)

BM: Tom Levitt performs all the roles in his play - they didn't have the funding to book any more actors. This scene is when the Labour Party chief whip has a quiet word with him in the chamber about the story breaking:

(Levitt voicing the parts):

My Whip came and sat down on the green benches behind me

"A word in your ear, bonny lad?"

"What is it Jack? I'm trying to catch the Chancellor's attention"

"Well it's something and nothing - in my waters I feel it's something"

BM: Have you always wanted to act? Are you finding it easy to act?

Tom Levitt: I've been a poet, a schoolteacher, a politician and I've been on the stage before, so I've never been a professional actor - and I don;t suppose I'm going to become one - but I enjoy it very much.

BM: What's his performance like so far?

Chris Melllor: I think it's very engaging, and I think there's going to be other ex-MPs coming along...

BM: Maybe some of those ex-MPs can have a go too?

CM: I'm up for the challenge!

BM: In this scene, the MP is confronted by one of his party activists:

(Levitt voices parts)

"Kitchen! - £5000!"

"Well, Kevin, I explained that as well - there are rules, and I stuck within the rules and it was all approved in advance, there's no problem there."

"I didn't spend all these years, knocking on people's doors in order to get you a kitchen like Jamie bloody Oliver!"

BM: Why did you do this play Tom? Because it seems odd to go back over something which was - caused such public outcry at the time.

TL: Well, what better to focus a drama upon, really? Because there were very deep and conflicting emotions in various parties to that drama, so in a sense it was trying to get a degree of frustration out of my system - there was a Catharsis element to the actual writing of it.

BM: As a kind of therapy?

TL: In a sense - but I don't want to say 'look, this is my therapy come and along and see how I try and cure myself'. It's not a defence - it's a warts-and-all depiction.

BM: I just wonder whether you're worried that people either won't turn up or will not want to hear your story, they're just not interested in a sob-story, or whatever it is, from an MP about expenses?

TL: It's not a sob-story, it does try to show all sides - you know, it's a small theatre, 80 seats, two nights, I've actually still got some friends after all this! If people are going to criticise it without seeing it, well, we'll judge their criticism accordingly.

(sound of producer and Levitt conversing)

BM: His producer is encouraging, but would like Tom to dig a little deeper. I leave them to it.

Levitt promotes 'Making Allowance' play on BBC Radio 4

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:36:00 +0000

After we wrote the last post, we discovered that Tom Levitt had actually appeared on BBC Radio 4's 'The World Tonight' last week to promote his forthcoming play 'Making Allowance'. We've managed to make a recording of the audio for posterity, and it can be heard along with a transcript of the interview by clicking the 'read more' button below.

During the interview, we learn that the play is to be held on two nights, Thursday 4th and Friday 5th November, with the latter date being obviously particularly appropriate - and no doubt intended by Levitt.

Predictably, Levitt labours on the poppy wreath claim - it's his usual trick to distract us from the claims for the greedy refurbishment of his flat, or the tax dodge which allowed him to pocket thousands, or even the athlete's foot-treating hairdryer. And whilst the presenter, Roger Hearing, takes him to task about the over-claim for mortgage costs, the whole sorry saga is nowhere near covered.

Levitt is clearly deeply wounded by this whole affair, to the extent that he can't help but return to the subject, and he stills feels that he has somehow been wronged. Roger Hearing is quite right to point out how disgusting this looks, at a time when millions of people are facing extreme financial hardship, redundancy, and distress.

Like we said in our last post, is there any reason why Levitt can't put on his play in his home town? We'd love to cover the play, but we're not prepared to spend money travelling down to London at short notice to heckle and give the audience more information - which we gladly do if this farce was staged closer to home.

We expect the audience will be composed largely of Levitt's peers and fellow MPs, which is entirely apt, since they are probably the only group of people who will have a shred of sympathy. Let's hope Levitt's 15 minutes of fame - after several months of infamy - is finally up.

Presenter: Now, do you remember Tom Levitt? Well up until the election, he was Labour MP for High Peak in Derbyshire, and had been for 13 years. But following the expenses scandal, he didn't stand again. The most famous or notorious aspect of his involvement in the scandal was an attempted claim for £16.50 for the cost of a poppy wreath laid on Remembrance Sunday. But he was, in the end, forced to repay £6000 after over-claiming on mortgage interest payments. Now you might have thought he would want to disappear from public life after that, but now he's written a play loosely based on what happened, and he'll be performing it at the New Diorama Theatre in North London, at the beginning of November. I asked him, why?

Levitt: I wrote the play over the Christmas recess last year after six months of living through the expenses scandals at first hand. It was instead of breaking windows I suppose; it's a way of expressing emotions and pent up feelings that had built up over that time, having been at the centre of an increasingly bizarre world for six months.

P: What, if we went to see this play, what would we see and hear?

Levitt: You wouldn't see a documentary - you'd see a drama, based on real life, much of which clearly is autobiographical, but certain dramatic and poetic liberties are taken with the story. But what you would see is me, basically, because the play has been adapted for one person to tell the story...

P: It's a monologue effectively?

Levitt: Not exactly, I'm acting out various scenes throughout it and it will be interesting, I hope, to watch, it will not just be a sort of theatrical equivalent of Talking Head.

P: I gather you've brought along part of the script, I wonder if you could perhaps give us a few lines from one of your speeches perhaps?

Levitt: (pathetic laugh) Well, this is the moment where the MP's wife hears what's going on:

"Darling, what do you think the man on the Council Estate will say when he's told he's paying your Council Tax and TV Licence?"

My excuses came pouring out, "look, it’s the second TV License we're talking about, the second Council Tax, my second home claim, and it's out of pocket expenses, it's not earning me any money"

"These are details, details; you spent the whole allowance the year before last!"

"Precisely, it's an allowance - Additional Cost Allowance - it's what we're allowed"

"Darling" she said "you can be so naive"

P: How do you think people are going to respond when they see and hear this kind of thing on the stage?

Levitt: They will realise immediately, that from the size of the theatre and the size of the audience - there's only 80 seats - that this is not a money-spinner. This is a...

P: Will you be making money from it?

Levitt: No, not at all, in fact it'll probably be costing me money!

P: Won’t it seem a bit of special pleading on behalf of someone who did wrong?

Levitt: Not at all, and this perception of what is wrong and what's right is an interesting one, because of course as far as the wreath is concerned - which is what I sort of got best known for - no money ever changed hands, I never received any claim back for it and in fact, I never actually authorised the claim to be made for it...

P: You did repay £6000 in relation to a mortgage claim though didn’t you?

Levitt: Over a period of time, there were a number of adjustments that had to be made, yes.

P: It's more than an adjustment - £6000 - isn’t it? It's more of a - you shouldn’t have taken it, and you did, and you had to repay it back?

Levitt: That, actually, is explained in the play - you're very welcome to come on the 4th and 5th of November and hear for yourself the background to that story, but as I say, this is not supposed to be a documentary - it's exploring the emotions that were going on by people who'd made claims by and large - and the vast majority of cases - in good faith, according to what were very weak and poorly drawn-up rules, very liberally enforced and, in a few cases, clearly deliberately not observed.

P: What will people in an age where people are facing savage cuts in their incomes, losing their jobs, think of you asking them to pay money to go and see a story about you, what you did - someone who actually took money from the public?

Levitt: I said it's not a documentary: it is a work of art and they should consider whether they want to come see it in exactly the same way as they'd go and see a film about 9/11 or anything else - I mean, I'm not saying it's on the same level as 9/11...

P: Don’t you think this will make quite a lot of people very angry?

Levitt: If they come and see it and they're angry, then I'm very happy to chat about it with them.

P: Are you nervous about going on stage and doing this?

Levitt: Slightly - but I have a very good producer and I'm getting more and more confident as the rehearsals go on.

Levitt's expenses play 'Making Allowance' to be staged in London

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:07:00 +0000

You may remember that back in March of this year, the Telegraph featured a story about Tom Levitt's plans for a radio play about the expenses scandal. We've heard nothing since.

But we've been passed news that the play has been converted to the stage. This press release popped into our inbox the other day, and here's the text:

Notes on a scandal

Meanwhile, a former Labour MP who stepped down at the last election is now trying his hand at a bit of theatre.

Tom Levitt served as MP for High Peak from 1997 to 2009 and was caught up in the MPs’ expenses scandal - accused of claiming for a mortgage, a fitted kitchen and a poppy wreath.

He has now decided to tell his own version of events by putting pen to paper and creating a play, Making Allowance, in which he will also star. It is being staged for two nights at the New Diorama Theatre in central London and promises to reveal the “fascinating and revelatory tale behind one of the most infamous chapters in recent British Parliamentary history”.

Yes, you read that right - Levitt is planning to star in the play. Will there be a part for his wife Teresa? A look at the theatre's website shows that the play has yet to appear in their schedule - though there is a play called 'The Robbers' which would surely be a more appropriate title.

We're keen to hear from anyone who is willing and able to attend and provide a review for the site.

Of course, the question needs to be asked - why is Levitt not staging this play in venues in his former constituency? We're sure the people of High Peak would give him an appropriate welcome at the Buxton Opera House or the Partington Theatre.

Months later, and Levitt is milking his notoriety of this whole affair...

Levitt's last words

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:12:00 +0000

Tom Levitt has this week written his last column* for your local newspaper in High Peak. It's basically a long list of what he sees as his acheivements, along with recollections about his time in Parliament.

Strangely missing from this is any mention on the expenses outrage, but perhaps that isn't surprising. However, he saves the most disingenuous part until last:

After thirteen years, I have decided to move on.

Tom doesn't make clear that he was moved on by the outrage in his Constituency Party, but his track record of being economical with the truth (if not with our money) is being upheld. His move to stand down was also no doubt motivated by the knowledge that the IPSA report spelt out that the 'golden parachutes' handed out to MPs upon retirement would no longer be anywhere near as generous as they were previously. Back in November last year, we outlined that Levitt would stand to gain £54,403 (£30K of that tax free) under the current system, along with an aptly-named 'winding up allowance' of over £42K.

So the end of Tom Levitt's career as an MP also means the end of this blog. It will remain in cyberspace as a record of his avarice and greed, but there's always our sister blog Levitt Watch, which will keep an eye on what he's up to.

In the words of Levitt "It has been a privilege. Thank you."

*if this link no longer works, try this screen grab

The Telegraph picks up on Levitt's Expenses Play for BBC Radio 4

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 21:33:00 +0000

The Telegraph has just posted an extensive article about the Radio Play Tom Levitt has written and submitted to the BBC, an admission he made in his response the the IPSA consultation which we revealed this week.

The Telegraph regard the play as 'a thinly disguised account of his own involvement in one of the biggest political scandals of modern times', and seem to have inside knowledge, and also quote Levitt which suggests self-publicity.

As we commented the other day, it's amazing that Levitt has the bare-faced cheek to portray himself as so dedicated and hard-working when he clearly has a lot of time to devote the writing a play.

The text of the Telegraph article can be read below upon clicking 'read more' at the foot of this post.

After being caught up in the MPs' expenses scandal, you might have expected Labour backbencher Tom Levitt to resort to a dignified silence.

But the public exposure of Mr Levitt's claims for thousands of pounds of bathroom equipment and a poppy wreath led to an unlikely blossoming of artistic creativity.

Mr Levitt wrote a radio play for the BBC starring an innocent MP who was wrongly vilified for his expenses, which – in a case of art imitating life – include claims for a poppy wreath and thousands of pounds for work on his house.

Unfortunately for Mr Levitt, Radio 4 were less than impressed by his efforts and have turned down the thinly disguised account of his own involvement in one of the biggest political scandals of modern times.

A Ten Minute Wonder – a play in 20 scenes – opens with MP Daniel Barrett attending to a single mum constituent's complains at his Saturday surgery.

As he gives her a piece of extraordinarily prophetic piece of wisdom, "Sticking to the rules isn't always enough unfortunately", the expenses scandal breaks.

"My waters tell me it's 'something'" a party worker tells him.

"Your waters? You only use waters to dilute your malt," quips Dan before assuring him: "I'm squeaky clean."

But Dan's world quickly falls apart as his kitchen and wreath claims are exposed.

During one scene, Dan explains how his claim for a poppy wreath came to be made – it was his secretary's fault.

But Dan admits that when he spotted the mistake on the official claim form, he submitted it anyway because he knew the fees office would reject it. "So there shouldn't be a problem," Dan says perhaps more in hope than with conviction.

But what causes real problems in the eyes of Barrett's own party members is the fact that taxpayers paid for a new kitchen for his flat.

In an echo of the angry criticism aimed at Mr Levitt and other Labour MPs received at the hands of their supporters, Kevin, an activist, tells Dan: "I didn't slog my guts out on doorsteps getting you elected so you could have a kitchen like Jamie Oliver. I did it for socialism, Dan."

Although he survives attempts by members of his constituency party to deselect him, Dan is faced with the prospect of paying back £20,000 in mortgage interest payments he has claimed from the public purse for his second home. Dan decides to resign at the next election.

The 38 page script is drawn closely from Mr Levitt's own experience of the expenses scandal.

The spotlight fell on Mr Levitt last May when The Sunday Telegraph revealed that he had submitted a claim for £16.50 towards the cost of a poppy wreath he laid at the war memorial in Buxton, on Remembrance Sunday, 2006.

We also revealed that he had been reimbursed £5,281 for renovation work to his south London maisonette, including new flooring, and a further £6,335 for a new bathroom.

The fees office had reduced Mr Levitt's original £8,013 claim for the bathroom, in line with the limit set by the 'John Lewis list' on what MPs could be reimbursed.

The fees office also rejected the claim for the wreath, which Mr Levitt – – said had been submitted in error by a member of his staff.

This reporter – who wrote the story of Mr Levitt's expenses – is given a brief role in the play, in the guise of 'Ben Deal', a Telegraph journalist who confronts Barrett about his own claims.

Like his fictional hero, Mr Levitt initially criticised the Telegraph's investigation, accusing this newspaper of "conniving with criminals in gutter journalism" for publishing the contents of a leaked disc containing uncensored details of all MPs' claims – though he later admitted "the [expenses] rules have been weak, poorly enforced and in some cases very poorly observed".

For his part Mr Levitt, who previously served on the Parliamentary Standards and Privileges Committee, was forced to repay £6,000 after over-claiming on his mortgage interest payments.
Like Dan he too has had enough. He has already decided to resign at the next election, saying it is time for him to take up new challenges.

These might include more fiction and even stand up comedy – he has already performed at the Buxton Fringe, in a show called No End of an Ass.

On leaving Parliament Mr Levitt will receive an estimated resettlement grant of around £54,000 – equivalent to 84 per cent of his salary – to assist him with the cost of adjusting to life after politics.

He will not be able to top that up with lucrative royalties from his play just yet.

The BBC rejected his radio play on the grounds it already has too much Westminster-based material and was too long for the 45 minute Afternoon Play slot on Radio 4.

A spokesman said: "BBC Radio 4 give all submissions due consideration, however, on this occasion it was felt the subject matter had already been covered in other plays both recently broadcast and in production for broadcast later in the year."

Mr Levitt says that writing the play has "helped get things out of my system".

"It's fiction, but it is all based on things that happened to me and other MPs," he admits.

"I'm not trying to justify anything, but it does explain the frustration felt my me and my colleagues. There was resentment at the media coverage, but the press were shining a spotlight on a murky area that should not have been secret in the first place."

Not everyone has welcomed Mr Levitt's farewell work of fiction.

Mark Wallace, campaign director for The Taxpayers Alliance – to which Dan refers to disparagingly in the play – said: "You would have thought that after all the public outrage at Mr Levitt's behaviour he might have focused his efforts on serving the people and repairing the damage he caused to Parliament's reputation.

"It beggars belief that he has chosen to spend his time writing a self-justifying play."

Far from being downhearted, Mr Levitt has not given up on his play and is already considering adapting it for the stage or TV.

Extracts from the play

Scene One

John: My waters tell me it's [The Telegraph's expenses story] "something".

Dan Barrett: Your waters? You only use waters to dilute your malt.

Scene 2

Penny (Barrett's wife): "What'll the man on the Downley Estate think when he's been told that he's paying towards your Council Tax and TV licence?

Dan: "Come on, you know that we're talking about the second [underlined] TV licence and the second [underlined] Council Tax here. The principle of funding the second home is well established.

Penny: Dan you can't go round telling your core voters they are wrong –

Dan: No –

Penny: And they wont see it as fair. The press will focus on the big names, but you'll all get tarred with the same brush."

Scene 7

Ben Deal (reporter): "Your kitchen? £4,718.75.

Barrett: So I believe.

Deal: What other jobs give you a free kitchen makeover?

Barrett: That kitchen was 40 years old. It's an ex-council flat, the kitchen was falling apart. You try and get a decent kitchen make over – as you call it – for that price.

Deal: Will that make it easier for the public to accept?

Scene 8

Barrett: There's a claim form here which includes a poppy wreath, in your handwriting.

Kerry (his secretary): Yes, I started in September and you helped me with the first few claim forms I sent in. You are always busy on Fridays, so you just signed some blank forms for me.

Barrett: That rings a bell.

Kerry: A couple of weeks later you checked them and asked me why the wreath was there. I said "shouldn't it be?" and you said "no". You said the Fees Office would spot it and wouldn't pay it, so no need for a fuss.

Barrett: That's right. And they didn't pay it. So there shouldn't be a problem.

Scene 10:

Craig (Barrett's election agent): The trouble is all MPs are tarred with the same brush. The duck house, the moat, Cameron's wisteria. You're all as bad as each other, that's what they're saying. Our council candidates are getting it on the doorstep.

Scene 11:

Penny: Danny, this thing's huge. I hate it. It may be a new era of openness and transparency . . but it feels like the threshold of anarchy, where no elected person is ever trusted again. (Pause. Kiss)

Kevin, a party activist (loud whisper): I didn't slog my guts out on doorsteps getting you elected so you could have a kitchen like Jamie Oliver. I did it for socialism, Dan."

Barrett (loud whisper): And so did I! Look what we've achieved! Minimum wage, rights at work, war against poverty -"

Kevin (loud whisper): "Don't get me started about war!"

Scene 12:

Barrett: Jesus Christ! My priorities are working for my constituents and my Party, not counting beans. I followed the rules, I took advice and guidance. Were was I supposed [underlined] to get my moral compass from? This is hair shirt morality – 'It's expenses, so it can't have been earned, so give it back'! It makes me sick!

Scene 20:

Barrett (to Craig): I've had six months of petty, prurient personal attacks and insinuations, distracting me from my real work of serving my constituents and getting decent laws passed.

I've got too much baggage, Craig. Someone will now carry on the work that I had been stopped from doing properly ever again.

I'm moving on. And do you know what? I feel better already.

Tom Levitt's response to the IPSA consultation

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:22:00 +0000

We alluded to To Levitt's response to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) expenses consultation, and here's a link to the PDF file. For ease of reading, we have reproduced the text of the document, and this is accessible via a link ('read more') at the bottom of this post.

Before you read it, you may want to note some rather interesting observations we have made upon reading it:

The document contains 13 spelling mistakes (highlighted in our reproduction).
Levitt reveals he has submitted a radio play to the BBC on the expenses issue (he says he has attached a draft, but this is not reproduced in the PDF). Clearly, he has a lot of time on his hands, which contradicts his comments about needing to use first class travel 4 hours a week in order to 'work'.
Contrary to his recent statements that the new expenses system is fair, he reserves a lot of vitriol for the proposals in this report.

There's a lot to his response, so we may be back to pick up on bits and pieces of it at a later date. In the meantime, read on...

Dear Sir Ian

Please find below some contributions to your consultation - below. I regret no longer have time before your deadline to contribute in as much detail as I would have liked. What follows is by no means a comprehensive outine of my view.

I recently submitted a radio play on this issue to the BBC for consideration and I thought you might like to see it - draft attached.

They say that democracy is the worst of all forms of government - apart from all the others. Whilst we should not put Members’ Expenses on the same high pedestal, we should be very careful to ask the question “Does this proposal really make the system fairer than the current one?” The current system is better, far better, than what went before - which was typified by ambiguous rules, inconsistent application and some blatant exploitation. What we have now is ‘work in progress’ but in some respects it has already gone too far.

What follows is a by no means exhaustive list but just six examples of where we - and you - have not yet got it right.

Accommodation

Chapters six and seven of your consultation set out a series of highly convoluted, bureaucratic hoops and hurdles which will be a nightmare to enforce. The system for accommodation and travel should be simple and straight forward, reflect obvious gropunds for discrimination (inner/outer London and elsewhere) but also respect an MP’s family life, freedom to choose and personal privacy - if that still exists. The idea of setting up a rental agency that can provide furnished accommodation for 200 MPs initially in just three months time, without being ‘ripped off’ by landlords and at an ongoing cost significantly lower than the payment of mortgage interest is simply not credible.

There is a myth that the payment of MPs’ mortgage interest is contributing to them accumulating wealth at the taxpayers’ expense. There is no logic to this argument. If interest rates and house prices remain stable, no homeowner makes any profit from any sale at any time. Rising interest rates (the only circumstances which would increase the taxpayers’ liability under the current system) does not in itself produce higher property prices or profits. Some MPs who bought second homes in recent years will have seen the value of their property fall. As they cannot expect the taxpayer to carry the liability of bailing them out, there should be no assumption that the taxpayer should benefit from any profit on the property, either. In other words, there is no link at all between the amount the txpayer has been contributing to mortgage interest payments and any profit the MP makes on the sale of the property.

You should add to that the ‘killer fact’ that for as long as I can remember, the taxpayers’ contribution to a modest property purchase in Lambeth (for example) is lower currently about a quarter of what the taxpayers’ contribution to a similar, rented accommodation would be. The issues of Capital Gains Tax and ‘flipping’ have been resolved. There has been no presumption in the past that any sitting MP who sells a second home property and buys another should pass all profit on to the second purchase (if they did not, they would be artificially inflating the mortgage interest element) and I am content with there currently being a cap on mortgage interest payments (and rent) of £1250 per month, falling over time. But the proposal only allows
rental rather than mortgage payments. at a considerably higher cost to the taxpayer, and only for one-bedroomed properties. This is very far from ‘family friendly’. Whilst it may allow for a spouse to stay the night (as long as they are on speaking terms and there is no medical reason for not sharing a bed) it does not allow for visitors or offspring to stay occasionally - a facility which helps MPs maintain a degeree of sanity in the Westminster hot-house.

Perhaps more seriously, I think your proposals will encourage MPs to live in London, base their family in London, and use the rent I hotel option for visits to the constituency. This will breed a 19th century, London-centric attitude which MPs of all sides and Parliament as a whole have moved away from, actively or passively but effectively over the generations. Your proposals are an entirely retrograde step. (See Q18)

Q7: Yes. Q8 misses the point. Q9: it should not. Q10: The proposal to introduce caring responsibilities would not arise if my suggestions are taken on board.

Hospitality

This issue has received very little coverage, but the removal of the £25 daily subsistence allowance has brought it into sharp focus.

There can be few jobs which require the level of networking and hospitality as ours. Whilst there has never been a specific budget head to cover hospitality, the fact that few diligent MPs can get to even their own London dining tables when Parliament is sitting means that dining, even in the Commons cafeterias, is more expensive than eating at home. Add to this the inevitable need to be hospitable to constituents, those who are lobbying you and those you are lobbying, and MPs have always been out of pocket on this necessary element of our professional lives. I am not asking for a hospitality allowance; though I do call for the £25 daily allowance to be restored. Even tea as a networking tool has a price - I note that this would be specifically allowed for MPs’ staff but not for MPs ‘on the go’.

Travel

My current journey from High Peak to London is as follows: Car/taxi from Buxton to Macclesfield, 25 minutes. Train from Macclesfield to London, 110 minutes. This would not qualify for first class rail travel under your new proposals which require 150 minutes of train travel. However, I invariably work on the train, something I can only do in a first class carriage for three reasons: that I have a table, space and privacy to work there; that I have a seat (as the standard class carriages between Manchester and London are often standing room only); and that (as I am over six feet tall) I have the leg room for comfort.

However, I have another route to London: I can walk from home to Buxton station, 2 minutes. Train from Buxton to Stockport, 50 minutes. Train from Stockport to London, 125 minutes. On a railway travel time basis alone this would qualify for first class travel under your proposed rules (even though there is no first class facility on the Buxton to Stockport train). Yet, if you add the waiting time at Stockport (disallowed under your proposals), the total journey time is an hour longer (two hours per week) than the first example. This is not a good use of my time! And MPs who benefit from conversation together in a relaxed atmosphere on the London train will find they have to travel in different carriages.

Discrimination always raises problems, Checking that MPs are following to the letter rules that will be extremely constituency-specific in their application will be a bureaucratic nightmare, It would be far better to keep the present arrangements whilst negotiating with the train companies a ‘bulk discount’ for tickets purchased with a Commons travel card.

My answer to Q13 is therefore a very clear ‘no’. I believe Q12 is a solution to a problem that does
not exist.

Family members

I described the propsals to disallow the employment of family members as follows: “We are being asked to identify the longest serving, most loyal, most sympathetic, most flexible members of our staff, who are most likely to work extra hours for nothing and sack them,’ Of course there can be abuses - the Conway case produced a very light punishment - but the description I have given descibes the vast majority of spouses of Members of all parties.

It is very important that MPs are not seen to be subject to rules which make them a ‘special case’.

Our rules should be neither tougher nor easier than those which members of the public must follow. In which other professions are spouses disallowed? Corner shops? Schools? GP surgeries? Any? Whilst it is of course good practice to recruit using an open recruitment process, the fact is that MPs are equivalent to very small businesses under employment law and the de minimis rule should apply; i.e. MPs are not required to advertise openly when a candidate who meets the requirements is available to be recruited. Family members should not be recruited when they are not capable of doing the job: but where they demonstrably do, and it is the MP who is in the best position to decide in accordance with Commons guidelines, the employment of spouses and family members should be allowed.

Q14: No. Q15: The current rules on probity for the purchase of goods and services should remain.

Communications

The rules around the use of the Communications Allowance as presently constituted are tight, frustrating but largely necessary. I applaud your proposal to require an annual report (Q6) to be published by each MP but it should neither be centred on expenses (‘all about the cost of everything and the value of nothing’) nor too tightly defined. People are much more interested in the issues the MP espouses, his loyalty to his party and his impact on the local commnity, The CA is an essential and welcome tool. Whilst modern campaigning has become very e-orientated (allowing rapid and effective two way communication at minimal cost) we are many eyars away from a totally e-literate society. Campaigning does not mean ‘party-political’ campaigning and it would be wrong to abandon the facility for mass commnication to those who are least confident with writing and speaking, the least educated members of the commnity. Every MP will tell you that most spontaneous contact from constituents on casework 9and almost all e-contact) comes from the middle class whose problems are certainly not greater than those of the ‘silent majority’.

I accept that this argument would perpetuate the ‘social worker’ image of MPs but I am proud of that. If a service is not working properly or not being accessed efectively then it is right for the MP to intervene.

Q16: No.

Incidentally, why has Parliament never managed to negotiate bulk postage rates from the Post Office? This is a clear missed opportunity to economise.

Stepping down

A colleague of 65 said to me recently that he would be stepping down at this election. He has a large majority and does not expect to lose his seat. But, facing the prospect of a possible one further year in a hung parliament before stepping down at the next election and losing the right to severance pay means he would be expected to work for the next 12 months after the election for no pay. This is intolerable.

MPs are not employees and although according to the principle of equal treatment I mentioned above, we should have rights akin to redundancy rights. Every other profession has a scheme. Whilst I accept that an MP who loses his seat at an election is not technically redundant, there are two categories of MPs: those (like me) who live with a constant worry that the next election may be their last and those (like my colleague cited above) who are effectively trapped by a large majority and would never be able to leave in a way which allowed him the time and space to prepare for life after Westminster. Your proposal discriminates between these two extremes (though they are extreme ends of a bucket-shaped curve).

You are proposing that resettlement funding should only be allowed if the MP is defeated at an election or deselected by their Party. I know myself, having decided to step down at the election, that it will take months to wind down my office and prepare myself pysically, mentally and organisationally for my next career. If! decide to stand down under the new rules as you propose them, have a choice:
- fight the election in a half hearted way in the hope that I would lose, in order to receive severance pay, possibly putting my Government’s majority at risk
- stand down voluntarily in the knowledge that I would receive nothing at all
- arrange for my local Party to deselect me, so keepng my resettlement allowance.

This final option is perverse but your new rule would encourage it. You would soon find no MP taking the second option! In none of these cases could the MP openly think and plan for life after Parliament in the way I have been able to do very constructively in recent months. I have to say that the prospect of facing this choice at the next election was certainly a factor in my decision to leave the House at this next one.

Q17: Yes.

Yours sincerely
Tom Levitt MP
Labour member for High Peak
www.tomlevitt.org.uk

Levitt - the ruling class must travel by first class

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:36:00 +0000

In complete contradiction to his more recent attempts at remorse, Tom Levitt is once again doing his damnedest to preserve the completely OTT perks of his job, despite all of he furore over MPs expenses, and despite the fact he will no longer be an MP for much longer.

The Sunday Times reported last week how many MPs were in opposition to the proposals of the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) which had produced a consultation document about the future expenses regime. The Sunday Times homed in on one particular aspect of the responses to the consultation by MPs - that surrounding first class travel on trains, which IPSA proposed to limit to 'exceptional circumstances'. This was presumably because of the remarks of the vile Tory MP for Macclesfield Nicholas Winterton, where he made it clear that he travelled first class to avoid working class people.

Amongst other publications that picked up the story was the Telegraph, quoting Levitt as follows:

"I invariably work on the train, something I can only do in a first class carriage for three reasons: that I have a table, space and privacy to work there; that I have a seat (as the standard class carriages between Manchester and London are often standing room only); and that (as I am over six feet tall) I have the leg room for comfort."

Now we're sure there are some people who want to work on the train (or indeed have to), but given that Levitt travels to and from London once a week, he spends 4 hours on a train a week - that's a week, not a day. So what is it that is so crucial for him to complete in this time? Travelling in Standard ('second') class does not prevent someone from reading, nor from making telephone calls (which are no more private in first class), and if Levitt needs a table, he could surely block-book his seat in advance, and save money too.

Levitt's protestations stretch credibility, and it seems they amount to little more than Winterton's. One part of Levitt's response that has been omitted is the following very revealing comment:

"... MPs who benefit from conversation together in a relaxed atmosphere on the London train will find they have to travel in different carriages" (i.e. under the new proposals)

In other words, Levitt prefers the company of his fellow members of the ruling class to that of the unwashed. Why should he have to stand up like the rest of us, on overcrowded trains? He's better than us, and surely doesn't deserve such indignities.

But now, Levitt is back to contradictory statements. In today's Buxton Advertiser, he's quoted as follows:

"The current system is far better than what went before — which was typified by ambiguous rules, inconsistent application and some blatant exploitation."

In a future post, we'll show you how hollow these words are.

Levitt denies rumours he is to be a paid adviser to Nestlé

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:22:00 +0000

Tom Levitt today published a press release on his website* about rumours he is to become a paid adviser to Nestlé after he stands down at the General Election.

This denial follows the publication of the following story in the latest edition of satirical magazine Private Eye last week:

Tom Levitt, Labour MP for High Peak, is standing down at the next election - no doubt to the relief of colleagues who were often bemused by his defence of Nestlé, the food giant frequently attacked for its baby milk marketing practices.

Levitt even went on a Nestlé-funded trip to South Africa, returning full of praise for his hosts and even quoting Nestle's own PR on his blog to refute activists' charges.

Announcing his decision not to stand for re-election, Levitt said: "I would like to spend more time with my wife, our children and grandchildren. I would also like to do something different in the work environment." How fortunate that one of the roles that will help the transition to his "new work environment" will be... as a paid adviser to Nestlé!

Levitt has responded as follows:

"Over the years I have been a guest of Nestlé at Wimbledon, at a cricket test match and on a visit to South Africa in 2008 to look at Corporate Social Responsibility, all properly recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. Nestlé is the owner of Buxton Water, an important local employer and an iconic brand of the High Peak area. It is right for the MP to have close relations with important local companies.

"I have no firm plans yet for what I shall be doing in the work environment after the election - though I have some irons in the fire - but the post of "paid advisor to Nestlé" is news to me.

"I am not aware of any MP colleague who has been "bemused" in the way the story suggests. The "practices" to which the story refers took place 30 to 40 years ago and I now believe that Nestlé is amongst the most ethical of traders in this field."

Which sounds to us like a lovely little bit of PR for Nestlé. For further details and background of this story, please visit our new blog - Levitt Watch!

*when this link no longer works, you can view a screen grab here.

Levitt prays for the 'last word' on expenses

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:22:00 +0000

Tom Levitt has today published a press release* (which is usually regurgitated as his weekly column) entitled 'Expenses the final word?'. Unfortunately for him, it still leaves some questions about the exact position. We'll go through some of his words (in italics) with our observations (in bold).

Gone is the do-what-you-like atmosphere which allowed MPs, including myself, to claim for things which the public found unreasonable. Note the use of the the word 'public', Levitt seems to be suggesting it's not actually unreasonable, it's just that those who take the view that it is outnumber him in thinking so. How very like Tony Blair!

Let me be clear about my record: I was guided by the law, the rules of Parliament, professional advice and my conscience at all times. All of which were found wanting - they write the rules, they create the law and they want us to forgive them for taking full advantage of it.

The auditors under Sir Thomas Legg disallowed three claims that I had made:

- the inadvertent claiming of 12 months (instead of 10) Council Tax on my London flat for two years, £412 (revealed and paid back last May). This simply isn't true - Legg's report contains no mention of the Council Tax, that was spotted by this blog last June, Levitt only repaying it when the press picked up our story. This was the only money that had been repaid last Thursday.

- a piece of furniture, allowed in 2005 but deemed to have been extravagant in 2009, £389 (revealed last October). That piece of furniture was a sofa bed which had cost us £1599, and which Legg considered was too extravagant to the tune of £389. The £389 had not been repaid by Levitt up until last Thursday.

- a miscalculation of mortgage interest over five years (confirmed in last week’s Legg report) of net £390.95. Wrong again: the mortgage interest was for 2004, 2005 & 2006 (3 years), and the amount outstanding was £800.95 as of last Thursday (nothing repaid then).

All of these sums have now been paid back; nothing is outstanding. We'll have to take Tom's word for it, some proof would be nice given that he has such a poor record of repaying the money that is owed.

We must move quickly to put these issues behind us. But not until May eh, Tom? Not until you're eligible for your massive golden handshake?

Now it could be that Tom is about to get his wish: this may indeed be the last word about Tom Levitt's expenses, given the lack of info likely to be available in future. But there is the whole question of what it is that Levitt will get up to next. Will he go back to teaching? Will he spread the good word about charities? Will he become an ambassador for Nestlé, a company with which he has been huddling in the past (now there's a story in there somewhere...)? Or perhaps Gordon Brown will reward him for his sycophancy by making him a peer of the realm? Lord Buxton anyone?

If this is the end, then keep watching this blog. Depending upon what follows, something else may follow it. We'll be watching...

*when this link no longer works, try this screen grab

More confusion - exactly what has Levitt repaid?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:55:00 +0000

Shortly after writing the last post, we turned our attention to another document released today on the parliament website. This is a list of exactly who has repaid what - Levitt appears on page 16 of this PDF.

Looking at the document you'll note that he has repaid £412, as today's Legg report made clear. But in the 'comments' column at the end, we learn what this is for:

Two months inadvertent over claim of Council Tax in two consecutive years.

Now you may remember that the issue of Levitt overclaiming £407.60 for his Council Tax was discovered and first brought to the attention of the world by this website last June.

So the questions that now flow from this are:

Has Levitt repaid anything towards the sofa bed overpayment identified by Legg?
If he has, then why hasn't it been accounted for by Legg?
If he hasn't, what the hell is he playing at?

There really is no point in looking to us for the answers when all of the official information seems so hopelessly confused...

Levitt the debtor still owes £777.95

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:32:00 +0000

As everyone will know by now, today saw the publication of Sir Thomas Legg's report into MPs expenses. The report (which can be read here - this is a PDF file) mentions Tom Levitt on page 97, and tells us the following:

Mr Levitt was overpaid by a net total of £800.95 for mortgage interest between April 2004 and March 2006.

He was also paid £1,599 for a sofa bed in October 2004. This exceeded the nearest relevant guideline price of £1,210 by £389.

Total repayment recommended: £1,189.95

Total repayments received since 1 April 2009: £412.00

Balance recommended to be repaid: £777.95

Yes, you read that right - Levitt still has not repaid £777.95.

Now let's pay a little more attention to the implications of this news. Our initial post on this blog in May last year dealt with Levitt's first confession-like column, where he admitted to over-claiming for mortgage payments. At the time, following the intervention of the Telegraph a few days later, this figure was shown to be £6,000 and Levitt said he had paid it all back. But now we find out that 4 to 6 years later, £800.95 is still outstanding. May we also remind readers that the issue of overclaiming for mortgage payments is an ongoing issue for Levitt: buried in the files released last October is correspondence between the House of Commons Fees Office and Levitt where they point out he has over-claimed for his mortgage (and broken a previous agreement) to the tune of £1,428.98, which they then deducted from his future claims to ensure that it was repaid (page 66 of this PDF).

The sofa bed issue meanwhile, is one that we are familiar from October last year. Levitt loudly commented that he had repaid it in full, and he indeed seems to have paid £412, i.e. £23 more than requested. But then he still owes £777.95.

When he announced that he was standing down from Parliament in November, Levitt said with regard to expenses reform that "we need to demonstrate that a line has been drawn". But after all that has occurred, his sincerity is still an issue, hence the outstanding £777.95. Levitt this week gave the kiss of death to his successor as the Labour candidate at the next election, Caitlin Bisknell, by loudly trumpeting her success* and having his photo taken with her, shaking her hand. One starts to wonder who benefits from this - is there anyone left in the High Peak who would shake the hand of an out-and-out liar and fraudster like Levitt?

*when this link no longer works, try this screen grab

Levitt - already breaking the new rules

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:58:00 +0000

Released alongside the expenses details for the year 2008-2009 were details for the first quarter of 2009-2010, under the renamed Personal Additional Accommodation Expenditure allowance (PAAE).

This PDF contains the claim forms for April, May and June 2009, which were submitted on 23rd June 2009. In his weekly column two weeks earlier* (entitled 'Humility', without a trace of irony), Levitt had spoken of MPs "indulgences in an anarchic system of spending rules (sic)". Yet the PDF shows that Levitt had not grasped the now simplified expenses rules at all. The PAAE files contain a letter from the Fees Office reminding Levitt of said rules:

Effective from 20 May Members may now only use PAAE to claim rent, including ground rent, hotel accommodation, overnight subsistence, mortgage interest ... council tax, service charges, utility bills ..., insurance.

Therefore, we can no longer reimburse you for Broadband, garage rental and cleaning charges. Your claims have been reduced accordingly.

Levitt had overclaimed by £335. We'll remind Tom of his words in his column of 1st June** (entitled 'restoring trust in politics') - "Let me repeat that where the law has been broken or rules disobeyed then appropriate punishment should follow". In his column of 18th May 2009*** (entitled 'Statement on MPs' Expenses'), Tom made the following statement:

MPs generally are neither criminals nor fools; but we are all human and therefore fallible. Parliament has lost people’s trust and we need to win it back.

Levitt clearly felt so strongly about winning that trust back that just over a month later, he was submitting illegitimate claims. It must be his fallibility - after all, he's only human.

*when this link no longer works, try this screen grab
**when this link no longer works, try this screen grab
***when this link no longer works, try this screen grab

'Hungry' Tom Levitt and the MPs trough

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:24:00 +0000

One of the more interesting aspects of the Additional Cost Allowance claim documents released the other week is some of the correspondence between Tom Levitt and the Fees office.

On page 27 of the PDF, Levitt asks for guidance from the Fees Office in relation to his claims for food. Levitt states that for the year 2006-2007, he used a formula he has devised himself of claiming £18 for each day the House of Commons was in session. However, Levitt has convinced himself that this is insufficient, and raised in to £25 per 'sitting day' from April of 2008. Noting that £30 per day has been 'mentioned', he is arguably keen to find out if he can claim even more.

In any case, Levitt claimed £3750 for food in the year 2008-2009. This equates to £72 per week over 52 weeks of the year, or £10 each day (never mind 'sitting days').

But what makes Levitt's figures even more scandalous is the fact that the Houses of Parliament has numerous cafes, bars and restaurants that are already subsidised by the taxpayer. In February 2008, the Daily Mail reported that MPs "can enjoy three-course meals plus coffee for as little as £10.55", with this subsidy amounting to £13,041 each day. Yes, you read that right: MPs can claim expenses to pay for their meals which are already subsidised by us in order to keep the cost down.

Pigs with their snouts in the trough indeed...

Levitt - Ready, Steady, Crook!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:04:00 +0000

We thought we'd walk you through a pictorial selection of Tom Levitt's Additional Cost Allowance claims, specifically those relating to his kitchen. So here we go.

First up is a claim for a cooker hob, specifically a Neff T1323X0 Ceramic Hob in Black. Teresa bought this in June 2008, a bargain at £449, but such a costly item clearly needs a warranty, and Mrs Levitt decided to take out 5 year cover for this item at the cost of £49.

6 days later in July, Teresa ordered a sink, this time a Blanco Classic 6S. This item costs £350, and unlike the one in the picture it had a left hand sink.

No modern kitchen is complete without a microwave, and Teresa's conscience clearly dictated she economise with a Panasonic NNE255, a snip at £59.

The last items on this little spree were a Microplane Fine Grater (£18) and John Lewis' own Soft Grip General Purpose Scissors (£13.50).

In March this year, the Levitt's completely refurbished their kitchen. They spent £189 on a Baumatic BT6-3GL cooker hood.

Strangely, there are no claims for a cooker itself, but the list of items claimed to re-style their kitchen is very long (it can be found on page 86 on the PDF) and they charged the taxpayer £5820.

When you're considering all this, keep in mind that the Fees office considered that all of these items were costs "wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of performing Parliamentary duties", as Tom is always keen to point out.

Tom Levitt's Barclays Premier account

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:22:00 +0000

One interesting thing that's worth noting from the PDF containing Tom Levitt's expense claims are the copies of bank statements. Whilst most of the details have been redacted, it's not these that interest us anyway. The statements make it clear that Tom and his wife Teresa have a 'Premier' account with Barclays.

If you pop along to the Barclays website for this account, you have to meet one of the following criteria to obtain this type of account:

1. Have an income of £100,000+, or
2. Have an income of £60,000+ if you are less than 35 years old or hold a business relationship with Barclays, or
3. Have £50,000+ to save and invest

Number 2 is clearly ruled out on grounds of Levitt's age. We think that number 3 is the most likely criteria that Levitt has used to get this account - but who knows, perhaps he has other (undisclosed) interests which mean he earns more than £100,000 each year?

Levitt's claims: 2008-2009 ACA claims

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:43:00 +0000

We've now updated our spreadsheet of Tom Levitt's expenses claims to take into account the latest figures released for his 2008-2009 claims. The spreadsheet can be found online at this link.

Under the general headings, the official total claimed by Levitt for this period was £20,522.58. However, we have carefully gone through the PDF that contains the details of his claims and can only seem to reconcile the figure of £20,526.18, which is £3.60 more than the official total.

Therefore, using our figures, these are the amounts claimed by Levitt for the financial year 2008-2009 under the Additional Costs Allowance:

Mortgage - £5,952.22

Food - £3,750.00
Utilities - £847.63
Council Tax - £1,093.64
Telephone & Comms - £250.00
Cleaning - £703.00
Service/maintenance - £1,136.67
Repairs/Insurance/Security - £286.96

Below is a selection of 'other' items claimed during the same period:

Bedding - £82.08

Ceramic Hob, Sink Kit, Microwave - £938.50

TV Licence - £139.50

Kitchen utensils - £178.00

Garage rental - £414.00

Valance - £15.99

Low energy light bulbs - £23.97

Cooker hood - £189.00

Kitchen refurbishment - £5,820.00

Hair clippers - £24.99

The Buxton Advertiser slams Levitt over latest expenses revelations

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:17:00 +0000

The Buxton Advertiser were this week the only local newspaper to take up the issue of the latest revelations about Tom Levitt's 2008/2009 expenses claims. You may remember that the revelations last week came too late for the newspapers.

Journalist Michael Broomhead - who previously seemed to be letting Levitt off lightly regarding the Capital Gains Tax issue - has now laid into him, choosing to highlight his smaller claims for hair clippers (£24.99) and a wine glass (£21.50), and contrasting this with the hardship being suffered by many at this time of year.

Now just over a week ago, we did promise a fuller analysis. Suffice to say we're working on it, and will be back shortly...

Levitt- shop 'til you drop

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:35:00 +0000

It's that time of year again - yes, more revelations about expenses claims is breaking news today. And Tom Levitt has really done himself proud.

A fuller analysis of the revelations today will have to wait, but in the meantime, here are a few tidbits:

Levitt claimed £938.50 for a ceramic hob, sink kit and other items from John Lewis in June 2008.

Levitt claimed £24.99 for 'hair clippers' in July 2008, but his claim was refused by the fees office, as it was felt it was a "personal item and not a cost wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of performing your Parliamentary duties"

Levitt claimed £5820.00 in March 2009 to refurbish the Kitchen in his London flat. In a letter to the fees office, he explained the existing kitchen consisted of "1970s Kitchen storage units which need replacing. The goods have been obtained at a substantial discount", thank god...

You can view the claims and associated documents in this PDF. There'll be more news and analysis as we get it

Poetry corner - in memoriam, Tom Levitt MP*

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:00:00 +0000

So. Farewell

Then Tom Levitt.

So I think
You made
The
Right decision.

You were
Aware
That if Mr Kelly's proposals were implemented
You would not get a good
Payout.

So indeed
Probably time to get out!

E Jarvis Thribb (age 17 ½)

*we're very pleased that an avid reader of this blog sent in a pastiche of the well known Poetry Corner poems that regularly appear in Private Eye.

How much is Levitt's 'Golden Parachute'?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:25:00 +0000

We thought we'd do some research about how much Tom Levitt is likely to cash in when he stands down at the next election.

Aside from a final salary pension scheme and lump sum payment (about which we have no details at present), there's the controversial so-called "golden parachute" payment (aka Resettlement Grant), which is officially paid to "assist with the costs of adjusting to non-parliamentary life".

It is calculated on the basis of the MP's age and length of service. So, by the time Levitt stands down next May, he will be 56, and will have served as an MP for 13 years. Using the ready-reckoner on this page (Table A), we can see that means he will qualify for a lump sum payment of 84% of his annual salary - based on the current MPs salary this will be £54,403. The first £30,000 of this is tax-free.

But that's not all. MPs are also entitled to a "winding up" allowance, which is supposed to pay for office costs and staff redundancy. Of course, this means that Tom will be able to make payments to the family members he has employed. This allowance can be up to £42,068. It is an aptly named allowance, but it is not a wind-up.

Don't believe Levitt's crocodile tears about this whole episode. The weakness of the local Labour Party in not moving to deselect him as an MP sooner means that he is laughing all the way to the bank. For the local newspapers that have chosen to regurgitate Levitt's press release for their 'exclusive story', this is the bit they are missing, deliberately in our view. The gravy train continues to roll on to the final destination.

Breaking news: Levitt to stand down at the next election

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:37:00 +0000

The Glossop Advertiser and Buxton Advertiser are reporting the news that Tom Levitt has issued a statement informing the world that he plans to stand down as an MP at the next General Election. The statement from his website* is below:

“I have informed the Labour Party that I shall not be a candidate at the next general election. After the current Parliament I would like to spend more time with my wife, our children and grandchildren. I would also like to do something different in the work environment. Between now and the election I will work as hard as ever, both to support my constituents and help secure a fourth term for Labour in government.

“The last six months have been torrid. Rightly, MPs have suffered collective as well as individual criticism for the scandalous mess of parliamentary allowances. Steps are now being taken to stop MPs deciding on our own expenses, pay and conditions ever again. This is the right thing to do. We need to demonstrate that a line has been drawn. New levels of transparency, compliance and enforcement can restore confidence in Parliament and the democratic system.

“I am proud to serve the people of High Peak in Parliament and I have done my best to be diligent on behalf of constituents. I have also been committed to legislation which, I believe, has improved life for ordinary people in High Peak and elsewhere. There is still much which needs to be done and I will continue to work for the people of High Peak until this Parliament is dissolved.

“I thank so many people in communities across High Peak for their support, indulgence and friendship over 20 years. This group extends beyond my natural political allies. My proudest memories will be the acquisition of the Devonshire Royal site for the University of Derby and the central role of High Peak in the pursuit of the historic right to roam.”

No doubt that because local Labour Party members were so miffed at being unable to deselect Levitt at the last meeting 2 weeks ago, that more and more pressure was piled upon him to step down. Without wanting to sound too boastful, the work of this blog has contributed to that, whereas the role of the local press in High Peak has been to give Levitt an easy time.

What is less than surprising is that Levitt has chosen to stay on in his well-paid and well-upholstered job for another few months rather than resign now, forcing a by-election. One can imagine that the local Labour Party want time to select and campaign for a new candidate, which is not surprising. But it also means that Levitt gets a very generous 'golden handshake', once more at our expense. We may be back with details of what that is likely to be in due course.

In the meantime, we're running a new poll - should Levitt stay until the election, or just go now?

*when this link no longer works, try this screen grab

Gunpowder, treason and plot

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:07:00 +0000

We feel it's highly appropriate to mark the end of a further burst of activity for this blog with a hat-tip to its inspiration: V for Vendetta. Whilst the graphic novel is far superior in political terms to the recent film adaptation, the finale is a timely reminder to all politicians how hated and despised they are, and how fragile is the membrane of consent that exists which allows them to do what they do to the rest of us.

With Tom Levitt seemingly safe until the next election, and with much of the Kelly Report's recommendations no doubt destined for fudge, we may well pop back with more news at some point over the next few months. Until then, enjoy the fireworks!

Kelly's Report is no surprise - and Levitt survives (for now)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:54:00 +0000

Today was the official launch of the report by Sir Christopher Kelly into MPs' expenses. After the leaks last week, there are few surprises from what we already knew.

What has been clarified is that the changes will be phased in over the next five years. So they will only affect Tom (& Teresa) Levitt if Tom manages to retain his seat at the next election - something which we imagine not even he will be banking on (if you pardon the pun).

In addition, there is some clarity regarding capital gains tax. In future, any gains have to be refunded to the exchequer - so Levitt at last learns about that which he had sought clarification back in May in Parliament. Whatever profit Levitt has made through his 'legal tax dodge', he gets to keep.

Back in his constituency, we understand Levitt faced more anger and discontent at last Friday's Constituency Labour Party meeting. Despite the rising discontent, we understand that Labour Party rules do not allow the local Party to deselect Levitt as the candidate in the next election due to the proximity of the General Election.

Whether or not anyone in the local Party will campaign for him next year is another matter.