MP Andy BurnhamIn response to last weeks vote to keep their snouts in the trough, Leigh MP Andy 'greedy bastard' Burnham, gave his own riposte to the criticism that he believes was 'unjust.'
Having read Mr Burnham's article, written exclusively for the Leigh Journal and Leigh Reporter, I must admit to reaching for the tissues................................to mop up the dinner that I'd just regurgitated over the dining table! Unfortunately, this bile you are about to read, will have the sheeple of Leigh, swooning over such a honest (sic) and heartfelt piece from our wonderful 'pig' of a MP. "What a lovely man he is?"
"I'm not really bothered about what the national Press says about me, but I am concerned that local people know the true story," he said this week. (Ed: of course you are concerned.)
"Like most MPs, I voted last week for MPs' pay to be pegged to pay for other public sector workers, and for this be the last time that we vote on our own pay.
"But, on MPs' expenses, I voted against suggested reforms. As this has led to criticism in the media, I wanted my own constituents to know why I voted in the way that I did. (Ed: Tissues out ready!)
"The vote related to what is called the Additional Costs Allowance. This is an allowance available to all non-London MPs up to a maximum of £24,000 a year to cover the extra costs of living in London four days a week and away from home.
"Generally, it is up to each MP how much to claim and what to claim for. All MPs' circumstances are different so claims vary. But many MPs - including me - do not claim up to this maximum. (Ed: But, many do Mr Burnham!)
"The proposed reform would not have altered the maximum that could be claimed. Instead, it would have changed how claims are made. It would have restricted the range of items that could be claimed (stopping claims for furniture, for instance) but replaced it with a general daily living allowance of £30 for all MPs (paid without receipts).
"Firstly, let me assure you that my vote against this plan was neither a vote for more money nor to keep the ability to claim 'luxury items'. I hope my own record on claiming the ACA allowance will bear this out. (Ed: I believe you!)
"I have always kept my ACA claims to a minimum, and have only claimed for things that I consider to be an unavoidable extra cost of the job I do.
"Since the last Election, I have never claimed even close to this maximum amount under the ACA. Indeed, in the financial year just ended, I claimed £10,503 under the ACA. This is less than half of the total amount available and one of the lowest ACA claims by any MP.
"My reason for rejecting the new plan was because I didn't think a £30 daily allowance was right or better than the existing system. (Ed: Of Course Andy)
"I felt it would be less transparent as it would not be directly linked to actual costs incurred. And, because it was a set allowance, I was worried it could lead to the criticism that MPs had begun to claim more was than was needed. For instance, the new system would probably have lead to my own ACA claims increasing. (Ed: Choke!)
"I must point out that I was not voting against any change. I acknowledge that there needs to be reform of MPs' expenses to rebuild public confidence. But I concluded that these were not the right reforms. (Ed: Yeah! Okay 'piggy' boy!)
"Better plans should now be drawn up to respond to the issues that I and others have raised and presented to the House as soon as possible. But, until those changes come, I would be happy to answer any questions about the claims I make or provide any further information to my constituents. (Ed: I'll be dropping you a line in due course Andy, my old china.)
"I have always said that it is a privilege to do this job. I also acknowledge that I am well paid and make no complaints about that. But I hope people will know me well enough by now to know that I did not come into it for the money or the perks." (Ed: Boo Bloody Hoo)
"So there you have it! All is forgiven Mr Andy 'greedy bastard' Burnham, sorry for doubting your true integrity!"
"Pass me those bloody tissues will you please."
http://www.leighjournal.co.uk/news/leighnews/3203388.Andy_Burnham_talks_about_MPs__expenses/
3 comments:
Actually, he seems to be a bit (lot) economical with the truth (aren't they all - Neil Turner was economical with the truth with me. The big silly did it in writing too. Now THAT is going to bounce back and hit him in leaflet form at the next general election. I have the relevant letter securely stashed - as evidence). In the year 2006/2007 Burnham actually claimed £13,461, NOT £10,503.
"Firstly, let me assure you that my vote against this plan was neither a vote for more money nor to keep the ability to claim 'luxury items'. I hope my own record on claiming the ACA allowance will bear this out. (Ed: I believe you!) (Morg: me too. Sure, why not eh? We've only caught him out in one inexactitude. That it's one out of one is, I'm sure, irrelevant. A 100% record on inexactitude! Aren't you lucky to have a perfectionist as your MP ... ). Well here's his record. Make your own mind up.
Here are his ACA claims since the turn of the century (Figures in brackets are ranks.):
Additional Costs Allowance
2006/2007 £13,461 (523rd)
2005/2006 £16,147
2004/2005 £18,501 (375th)
2003/2004 £20,317 (joint 189th)
2002/2003 £19,722 (joint 1st)
2001/2002 £18,009 (joint 2nd)
(his TOTAL expenses claims since 2001 are not far short of £600,000. Check it out at the link below)
The reason he's these days so low down the rankings is that he bought his London home when prices were so much lower. I see he was joint first and joint second of all MPs ACA claims up to 2003/2004. I don't suppose he mentioned that in the local rag?
Of course, it does mean that when we eventually boot him out of parliament he'll make that much more profit on the sale. Mind you, with the way house prices are plummeting ... Heh heh heh!
Do you think you should write a letter to the paper (cc to Burnham)?
Suggest you keep a copy of the original newspaper article - as evidence. Could use that, along with the figures I've given here ... in leaflets at the next general election. If it's on-line - take a screen grab. If not - securely stash the paper. We'll need it when he denies our claims in the election leaflets. These sorts of thing have a way of disappearing off the internet, if you know what I mean. That's why I've taken screen grabs of the wisdom spouted by our good friend Elliot. ALWAYS take screen grabs of interesting stuff.
For more details about Mr Burnham (including other expenses claims), go here:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/andy_burnham/leigh
And oh my goodness me - look at the stuff he's voted strongly for, and voted against. He's not the Messiah, he's a naughty naughty boy (apologies to Brian). This man is in the LABOUR party? Not the Labour party I used to love and be a member of.
Here are Turner's and McCartney's records, for those interested in checking. Read ALL about them - their voting records are interesting. LABOUR party?:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/neil_turner/wigan
Oh my goodness me - look at his ACA claims. More leafleting material.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/ian_mccartney/makerfield
And this one's on the big business gravy train too, as well as big expenses. What on Earth does this slug know about nuclear power such that Flour are paying him £110,000-£115,000 a year? I doubt it's his nuclear expertise they're paying for. And he's playing the tax minimising game with that. Just read it.
Oh look, here's a picture of the three of them at work together:
http://livingininterestingtimes.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/pigs_trough.jpg
The next general election is going to be interesting on the leaflet front.
Morgan, I just love your analylical aptitude! Thank you in adavance!
Post a Comment