SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Shops & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (2): « First < Previous 1 [2] Last »
Forest Hill MP Jim Dowd's Expenses
Author Message
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #21
23-06-2009 01:02 PM

Sorry I did not appreciate he had an MP as partner and they were double claiming ( or he is not allowed to because he is inner Londinium )
Sounds like Mrs Kirkbride from Bromsgrove

Find all posts by this user Reply
Dylan


Posts: 58
Joined: Jun 2007
Post: #22
23-06-2009 02:12 PM

jim dowd's expenses are open to inspection along with every other MP,I think you will find he does not claim anything that he is not entitled to - if his partner claims a second home allowance thats because she has a second home in her outer london constituency
she is fully entitled to claim the allownace for this, again her expenses
are available for inspection. -

the postings on this subject are ill informed and I would have thought slanderous, people should think carefully and get their facts straight before they post on any subject on this site.

I don't know what your agenda is Dan on the Hill but try and keep it truthful!

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #23
23-06-2009 03:10 PM

This is getting more confusing. I thought someone said the goodlady was an MP for a Lancastrian seat , hardly outer London.
True if she is an MP for a Lancastrian seat no problem her having a second home in central London as long as 1 bed flat and not palacial but if she is staying somewhere else whilst in London then of course would not be justified to charge us the the London Home just part rent same as our former home secretary in Dulwich.
I have no idea of the facts and only reading the other posts. My sincere apologies to the good lady if I have misunderstood.

I agree with Roz that Mrs Milk is a disgrace with homes in central london and Rye ( not Beck / Ponge ). I trust she is standing down without payouts but guess shen would think that with the loss of Ponge her seat would be 100% safe.Again this is how I understand the facts if wrong again many apologies to the good lady

I was not inspired by the new speaker. I would have liked to see Anne Widdecombe but she was not the MP's choice as would have shaken them up. Also the fact only there to next election and would not have taken any speakers pension were pluses. I hope I am wrong but I think we have not got someone to clear up the system , but I would love to be proved wrong

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestGump


Posts: 202
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #24
23-06-2009 05:57 PM

Re 'The Good Lady' from up north, it would seem from her local paper the property in her constiuency is registered as her second home and costs taxpayers about ?200 a month in cleaning bills.

It has been reported Jim Dowd voted against motions that would have reduced the second home allowance and the scrapping of the 'John Lewis' list.

Last July it is said Jim Dowd voted for a motion that has raised the inner London MPs supplement from ?2,818 to ?7,500 on top of their salary of ?61,181.

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestGump


Posts: 202
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #25
23-06-2009 06:57 PM

The claim Jim's expenses are open to inspection is not correct, a total of ?12,000 has been claimed without reciepts or records being kept.

Bear in mind roughly ?16,500 has been paid to his local party for office space and services....what little items such as tea, buiscits & newspapers could add up to ?250 every month?

If there was no petty cash box or book kept how did he know he'd spent without fail ?250 a month?

Roz, his partner may have 2 offices but she is not allowed to claim two lots of petty cash, which she has been doing for the past 2-3 years.

Each month for 2-3 years she has claimed the maxiumum ?250 for her constiuency office and against the rules another ?250 for her House of Commons office.

Anyway I see from one of the very few receipts/invoices in her file she supported a local firm, Forest Hill Cars with a ?35 taxi ride.

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #26
23-06-2009 09:03 PM

Well, as I see it, he is he and she is she. Seems as if all you have on him is her, so to speak. She's not our MP so whats your point. If you don't like Jim, just campaign to vote him out.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Snazy


Posts: 1,495
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #27
23-06-2009 11:09 PM

I have to say I have enjoyed reading this thread.
I had not bothered to look into the expenses of our local MP, and thank those who did for posting what was found.

I have also enjoyed the interesting defences of what these people are "entitled" to.... There is a big difference between being able to have something, and actually needing to take it.

Im saying no more Smile

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestGump


Posts: 202
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #28
24-06-2009 12:01 AM

Roz, do you really believe two people living together as a couple are not going to have financial agreements regarding housing and food bills for example?

Last year his partner claimed against her own second home allowance about ?350 a month for food, how many was she eating for?

Apparently he is the only MP in South London that claimed the full ?250 petty cash on a regular basis, a total of ?12,000 for which he provided no reciepts or records of how it was spent.

How as an MP are his tax affairs so complicated he needs taxpayers to pay his accountant's fee?

If the amounts are insignificant why did he bother to claim them, why don't you offer to pay the sums involved?

Last year Jim was subject to allegations of missusing taxpayers money by using his Communications Allowance to canvass residents not in his ward?

In the middle of a credit crunch where millions have lost their jobs or put on shorter hours he voted a for a motion that would increase his annual London Allowance from ?2,800 to ?7,500.

Without knowing what ?12,000 was claimed for, some have argued he has not claimed for anything that he is not entitled to. Following their logic they would see nothing wrong with taxpayers funding an MP's moat being cleaned or providing an MP's ducks with a floating house.

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #29
24-06-2009 10:31 AM

I'm not trying to defend wrong doing or people being greedy, but I think all this is a matter of extent.I have no real idea about his relationship status and I suspect that few readers of this forum have either. They are not married therefore I am not sure what and what does not apply, especially as she has family in the north east and probably associated expenses. As I said before much of the discontent appears to be about his partners actions not Jims so why is this being acted out on this forum?

I don't actually support many of the things he has voted for including invading Iraq but I consider it more appropriate to express my discontent in other ways. I think the whole issue of expenses is a disgrace but picking on individual MPs who have played the system (some less excessively so than others) is not going to get us anywhere. I would like to know who of the rest of us would be saints if offered something in a job that appears legitimate and has followed custom and practice over many years.

The expenses thing has been done to death so I am curious why all this is being discussed now when the Telegraph published Jims information some time ago. Its all yesterdays news. Get a saint to stand in the next election and I'll vote for him/her in the next election but I suspect that you'll see pigs flying over se23 first.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #30
24-06-2009 03:43 PM

Roz
I am further confused I thought the good lady was from the good country of Lancashire , someone else said outer London now you are saying North East.
Anyway I agree if she is a mere tennant no problem as long as Jim is declaring the income on his tax form . Also I agree her food bill seems very high especially as meals in the commons are heavily subsidised or even free.

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,200
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #31
24-06-2009 04:19 PM

I have tried to stay out of this discussion but I would make the point that Janet Anderson's declared second home is in her constituency, not in London. So there is no reason to suggest that Jim Dowd declare this as income, especially since it is payment for a mortgage, not rent paid by Janet to Jim, and therefore it is not Jim's income in any way.

I haven't seen so much nonsense talked on a thread since the witch hunt against Jehovah's Witnesses and our attempts to settle whether or not God exists. I do enjoy such nonsense!

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #32
24-06-2009 04:59 PM

Heres more nonsense. Make the most of it as when I go back to work next month I won't have time and will have to be sensible again.
I confess I know where Scotland is but am a little vague about the bits of England in between. All I know that Lancashire etc is Somewhere Up North. Apologies therefore to the Good People in the North East if I've got it wrong.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #33
24-06-2009 05:11 PM

OK I agree this going nowhere partly my fault

For Roz's benefit Rossendale and Darwen are in The County Palatine of Lancashire which is generally refered to as NW England.
She only has a majority of 3676 so looks like curtains although there appear to be boundary changes ( rather like our constituency )

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (2): « First < Previous 1 [2] Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields