Bridge Ward News » Chris Mole Office allowance

Chris Mole’s website – Labour benefits, you pay

James Spencer — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:53:27 +0000

The website of Chris Mole was paid (at double the going rate) for by you and me, as taxpayers.

http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/chris-mole/Chris_Mole_0506_IEP.pdf

If you’re a Labour loyalist then this is a good deal, if you’re not then you’ve been robbed.

When one of the most prominent links on their website is to a scaremongering Labour website you can almost hear the refund cheque being written. The office expenses are not for party political activity after all.

You then get some of the frankly bizarre poll questions that make you wonder if the author hasn’t been hired from the Chinese Communist Party Department of Very Fair One Sided Poll Questions. Take this example:

“Do you agree that getting a university campus in Ipswich is a major triumph for the Labour Party in Ipswich”

How do you parody that question? Remeber that you, not the Labour Party paid for that.

From beyond parody to the screaming subtext, how about this poll question:

“Do you think that local Tories and Liberals were vindictive to sack Labour councillor Phil Smart from the chair of Ipswich Buses for revealing cuts plans”

Now what would the publicly funded Chris Mole website, Ipswich Buses and Councillor Phil Smart all have in common?

Chris Mole’s Website costs, guess who pays

James Spencer — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:34:13 +0000

Chris Mole has a website, which is all very nice, and it’s a very good party political website. However, and you’ve probably guessed it, who pays for it. Well, I’ve got an expenses claim:

http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/chris-mole/Chris_Mole_0506_IEP.pdf

That’s £2408.75 for a website. That is as much as it looks. For example, Public Impact, the rule breaking Labour campaigning group, will do a website for £1200.

So who is this “SS Double Design”? I don’t want to make any second world war jokes, but, really.

Chris Mole – An Apology of sorts

James Spencer — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:02:38 +0000

An anonymous commenter (and they want to remain that way as they went to the trouble of using an anonymizer to make this web posting) has taken me to task for pointing out that Chris Mole was using Public Impact to send out party political propaganda using his taxpayer funded office expense account, against parliamentary rules.

I said at the end of the original post “He should pay back every penny that we the taxpayers paid to Public Impact.”

He did not break the rules on using the communicaton allowance, which is designed with the purpose of funding Labour MPs re-election campaigns.

So one year in four he’s kept to both the letter and spirit of bad rules.

However for three of the four years he’s systematically abused his allowances and should pay back every penny paid to Public Interest from his office allowances.

Public Impact – Breaking the Rules

James Spencer — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:38:31 +0000

Public Impact, for who we the taxpayer pay more than £4,000 a year, are not a simple print shop. They are a Labour Party operation, although they do not seem to have any above the counter links. However they are clear on their (Labour facing) page as to what they are about:

We do not work for the other parties nor their MPs. We are staffed by Labour Party members and supporters.

In short, they are highly partisan and any public money going towards them will be expected to be going towards electing or re-electing Labour candidates.

So bad enough in a “communications” budget, but surely our MP would not misuse his expenses to get their services in an office budget?

Well not the last year, but the year before that?

Sure he did:

£1110.48 for 30,000 leaflets in 2006/07:

http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/chris-mole/Chris_Mole_0607_IEP.pdf#=page[58]

£2,546.41 for 70,000 leaflets and 500 posters in 2005/06 (election year):

http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/chris-mole/Chris_Mole_0506_IEP.pdf#=page[39]

£1,571.06 for 35,000 leaflets in 2004/5:

http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances-by-mp/chris-mole/Chris_Mole_0405_IEP.pdf

£5,227.95 on literature over three years. That makes up for a lot of lost Labour Party members and union subscriptions.

And here are the rules from the Green Book that is supposed to that claims to govern the Parliamentary allowances:

The AOE is an allowance designed to provide for facilities, equipment, supplies and services for Members and their staff.

It may only be used to meet the following costs:

Accommodation for office or surgery use or for occasional meetings
Equipment and supplies for the office or surgery
Work commissioned and other services
Certain travel costs not met out of travel expenditure

…….

The only area that the Public Impact propaganda could potentially claim to be calling under is for “Work commissioned and other services”, however even this is not open to interpretation:

Maintenance services for hardware, software and equipment
Interpreting and translation services
Training for Members or staff
Recruitment services
Work that you would reasonably expect a member of your staff to undertake, for example, a piece of research

It is cut and dried, Chris Mole has used the taxpayer to pay for propaganda, against both the spirit and the letter of the rules. He should pay back every penny that we the taxpayers paid to Public Impact.