Shull & Moriarty wish they thought of this…

While nepotism has been frowned upon in US Politics, and its practitioners scolded in some states, efforts to shun it in the UK are causing some MPs to find ways around new rules proposed by an in-house auditor.

This morning, BBC South East reported that Susan Gale, who has worked in her husband Roger's Parliament office since his election from North Thanet (surrounding Margate in easternmost Kent) in 1983, has written to an employment solicitors agency looking for advice on how to keep her job should rules make it illegal for MPs to hire family members for their offices. Reportedly, she says that she would either have to divorce her husband to remain at the job or become unemployed.

A statement of that nature would get the "Really?" treatment from Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update. While I'm half-tempted to come up with one bordering on half-researched ad hominems, I'll concede to the master Seth Myers. After all, he'd execute such a rant much better and be surrounded by an audience already laughing uncontrollably just after midnight.

If the Gales are serious about divorce for the sake of keeping her on the gravy train in the midst of a recession, as oppose to coming up with a budget like most of Middle England, this would perhaps be the first instance of a sham divorce in modern history. No one's going to believe there was a lack of love or irreconcilable differences. Especially if such a divorce was genuine, in which case where was the love to begin with?

This duo have been a steady force for the Tories in East Kent, claiming the seat when it was established in 1983 over a last-minute campaign by Cherie Booth, who wound up in 10 Downing a decade later as Mrs. Blair. But with public distrust down to a point where Average Joe voters are threatening to vote for the reactionary BNP just to send a message, no seat is safe. To publicly say something of this sort shows a complete disregard for the people's interests in Parliament. To say you would go so far as to discard participation in a noble institution like marriage just to keep feeding at the public trough shows complete callousness and lack of concern for proper use of the taxpayer's money.

It's bizarre loophole exploitations like this that make taxpayers angry as hell. At least it's nice to know that Peggy Shull & Judy Moriarty didn't think of this when they helped their kids out 15 years ago.

Forget Swine Flu; UK braces for Tory Foot-in-Mouth Disease

While the US debate vigorously the virtues and/or follies of the NHS, and the NHS replace the teenagers they hired to diagnose over the phone cases of Swine Flu, another ailment has swept through the ranks of the Conservative Party.

At first, it claimed London mayor Boris Johnson, who last month called an extra £250,000 for writing a weekly column for the Daily Telegraph "chicken feed". This is on top of his salary as mayor, which is a mere £140,000, and was initially raised amid criticisms that he was receiving it in spite of a directive from David Cameron for Tory front-benchers to dump their second jobs in preparation for the election that has to occur before 3 June 2010.

Now comes a video, filmed by an invited visitor who was protesting the excessive expenses claims of MPs, where shadow Commons leader Alan Duncan stated: "You have to live on rations and are treated like s---." The base salary for a Member of Parliament is £65,000 per year, plus reimbursable expenses.

Naturally, most Conservative front-benchers were quick to distance themselves from Duncan's comments, and Duncan's apology was equally quick. However, his chance of recovering from this strain of foot-in-mouth disease appears grim, as he might have an extended stay in an intensive care unit called a backbench.

Ma, where's the black ink?

It's a good thing I didn't pack my trusty All-In-One HP Printer like I wanted to. Granted, a new one here is going to run me at least US$100 from the looks of things, but I would find myself running after another black ink cartridge were I to print off the expense reports formally released Thursday by Parliament.

Instead, I think I found myself a new screen saver. Addresses of MPs' homes, their offices, signatures, descriptions of items purchased, even UPC numbers and addresses of vendors were blacked out from forms released. These were among the redactions I noticed when reviewing this particular set of claims from Folkestone MP Michael Howard. Some of it is understandable: you don't want hackers and other net-savvy miscreants picking up signatures and forging documents or gaining sensitive information. But really, could someone really scam their government and an office supply company just by looking up a UPC number?

Worse, who had the bright idea to block out the product code number for fax toner? (See page 28 of the previously linked report) Waste of time, considering that there was enough information to pull up the item on the Web site of the very company from which this must-have-product-number-classified Samsung SF5100 Fax Toner was acquired.

Of course, where am I suppose to find the well-manicured gardens that Howard reportedly charged the taxpayer £17,000 over four years without resorting to asking around or thumbing through the White Pages? (I'll link those claims, which also blacks out how local taxes are spent by the district council which is also conveniently blacked out—it's Shepway District, by the way.) The meat of the expenses controversy that has sent several MPs to the figurative gallows: swapping the second homes to jump through a tax loophole. With their addresses blocked out, the Average Joe and novice reporter wouldn't have concrete evidence to flat-out call them on it, but their innocence would certainly be in doubt. A sceptical American would assume guilt by their "pleading the Fifth" which is suppose to prevent self-incrimination.

When looking up information on MPs on Parliament's Web site, no addresses to be found. Checking out Michael Howard's profile, the only local contact information made available are a phone number for his office in Westminster and his constituency Web site.

Let's take a look at who isn't concealing their home address, at least as of the time of this post. (I state in advance that this is linked only for example; please don't exploit it as you'll only dis-service the constituents of the linked legislators.) How about the Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives? A quick review of several member biographies finds that at least three more representatives (I'm only linking the general search; happy hunting.) have indeed listed their home address and phone number. Several others have omitted the details, while many others list a district office. Typically, such addresses are included with candidate filings. For example: last year's candidates for governor, which has Jay Nixon listing Jefferson City instead of his hometown of DeSoto. Guess he did live on a dead-end street when he was Attorney General.

Now, this just might be a difference in culture. After all, Jefferson envisioned the typical elected representative, be it U.S. Congress or state assembly, as a humble and conveniently enlightened farmer elected by other humble and conveniently enlightened farmers. Or this may easily be one of the last gasps of a trough-addicted Parliament staving off pitchforks any which way they can, only to cause even more to get pointed in their general direction. (Fortunate for them, using a pitchfork to vote would spoil the ballot paper on account of there being more than one tong.)

Conservatives extend majority in Kent

Kent County Council election results maps. From KCC Web site.

Labour's popularity woes could not be emphasised more than the voice of Kent voters on Thursday.

With all of Kent County Council's 84 seats up for grabs yesterday, Labour could only retain two of their 20 seats. The Conservatives, who entered with a 37-seat majority over the Labour Party, now have a commanding majority of 74 councillors. The Tories defeated Labour in 18 of Labour's defending seats, and gained one from the Liberal Democrats (Malling Rural North East) while spotting the LibDems two. The LibDems will now be the primary opposition party with seven members.

Throughout the traditionally Conservative county, Labour experienced negative swings as the Tories and Liberal Democrats made modest vote gains, fueled by the ongoing expenses scandal and lower voter turnout. In Dover's district, all five Labour councillors were cast aside in favour of incoming Conservatives. A twelve percent swing against Labour cost leader Mike Eddy his seat, resulting in him placing sixth in the Deal dual division behind colleague Terry Birkett.

Across the county, negative swings for Labour allowed smaller parties to gain votes. Notably in Gravesham and Dartford districts, candidates from the Green Party, Eurosceptic parties England Democrats and UK Independence Party, and local parties made sizable gains. A 25 percent swing against Labour allowed Richard Lees of the Swanscombe and Greenhithe Residents Association to claim a seat, becoming the only non-Westminster party to earn representation on the county council. In Maidstone Central, where a six percent swing allowed the LibDems to claim both seats over a Tory incumbent, the one UKIP candidate earned more votes than both Labour candidates combined.

Labour's only two holds came in dual divisions where two councillors were elected. Leslie Christie remained the top-vote getter in Northfleet and Gravesend West, with the Tory's Harold Kraske placing second. In Ramsgate, Elizabeth Green placed second to the Tory's John Kirby, while Green's colleague Alan Poole fell to fifth behind another Tory and a UKIP candidate.

General resentment toward MPs caught up in the expenses scandal was evident in the Shepway district, where Michael Howard's defence of his £17,000 claim for gardening on his rural Folkestone home and £44,000 for renting a constituent office in Folkestone's town centre also caused backlash on Tory incumbents. The Liberal Democrats were able to claim Folkestone West, as Tim Prater defeated Robert Bliss by 11 points, a nine percent swing away from the Conservative incumbent. The remaining Tory incumbents also experienced negative swings, mostly toward UKIP, but were able to retain their seats.

The obliteration suffered by Labour in Kent was echoed through the rest of England, where Labour only mustered an estimated 23 percent of the vote and lost control of all four councils where they had a majority. Labour's majority in the northern county of Lancashire was reduced to six seats total, with the Tories assuming the majority and the ultra-nationalist British National Party claiming their first council victory in their history. The Tories also gained majorities from the LibDems in Devon and Somerset in England's south west, despite their vote share shrinking to 38 percent from last year's 44 percent.

Election results for the European Parliament will not be released until Sunday night, but if local election totals are a foreshadow, Labour may face further significant losses and put into deeper jeopardy the tenure of Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

The worst time to hear "You've got mail"

Polls in the UK have just opened, and Britain will be the first EU nation to cast votes in the European Parliament election. The remaining 26 nations will cast their votes over the coming weekend. I'll have more on how it will shape out and how the parties coagulate when they arrive in Strasbourg or Brussels.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Gordon Brown bid a tempered adieu to another Cabinet member yesterday, communities secretary Hazel Blears. Blears made no secret of her disapproval of Brown's performance, and went home to her constituency to campaign for her fellow Labour candidates in today's elections wearing a pin saying "Rocking the Boat". She, along with others who resigned this week from Cabinet, were potentially on the way out anyway as Brown contemplated a reshuffle in the wake of the expenses row and potential humiliation in the polls.

Meanwhile, several Labour MPs are reportedly circulating an e-mail to gather signatures forcing an internal leadership battle. For the e-mail to take effect, 20 percent of Labour's MPs (just over 70) would need to sign it, backing one candidate who would be willing to challenge Brown, to force a snap leadership poll.

More interestingly, should enough of Brown's closest advisers convince him that he's cooked and needs to step aside to salvage Labour's reputation and keep him from becoming England's version of Kim Campbell, then in the ensuing leadership contest, a candidate would only need the support of 40 MPs. Or, were every non-Labour MP to vote in favor of a no-confidence motion, only 33 Labour MPs would need to defy their whips and vote to topple their own government. Of course, they wouldn't survive for long in their own party caucus.

Unless they were already on their way out. Currently, seven Labour MPs have announced in recent weeks that they will leave Parliament when this term is done, and three of them have been barred from returning to Parliament as part of Labour. Public resentment toward these defrocked MPs over their excessive claims further intensified when word came of their golden parachutes should they leave when Parliament dissolves. Were these particular MPs interested in keeping their dessert from the public trough, they could easily back efforts to dissolve Parliament before Parliament takes up much-needed reform legislation and disciplinary action.

Is there any guarantee that these MPs would actually be petty enough to put their golden parachute ahead of their own party's interests? Hardly, but given the chaos of the past several weeks, it's entirely possible.

Eenie Meenie Miney Mo, time for Gordon Brown to go?

It seems that when politicians are ripe for criticism, they always seem to resort to visiting an elementary school or preschool. It's well known that George W. Bush was lambasted for not bolting out of a third-grade classroom in Florida when he first learned of the 9/11 attacks. I also recall a news clip Index photographers pinned to the wall in 2004 when Dennis Kucinich (according to the Post-Dispatch's headline) declared he was in it to win it to a group of listless fourth graders, including two in the front row who weren't granting him eye contact. And during the 2008 election, Tina Fey suggested (via her impersonation of Sarah Palin in the VP debate) joked that third-graders helped her prepare for that debate moderated by Queen Latifah (er, Gwen Ifill).

Today, Gordon Brown joins the ranks. Just as three of his ministers have announced their resignations, his chief lieutenant Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, too could be on his way out as a result of his potentially fraudulent claims on both his London flat and 11 Downing Street, four Labour MPs barred from running for the party again as a result of their expense claims (including three who have already announced they're leaving at term's end), more Labour MPs expressing serious doubts about the current party leadership, a brick wall dead ahead in the form of Thursday's local and European elections, and two nationalist parties, Wales' Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party, announced they will introduce a motion of no confidence before Parliament next week, (interesting quirk on that I'll expound on later this week, I should add) guess where the Prime Minister was, as filmed by the BBC?

Visiting a preschool.

Wonder if the kids helped him prepare for what will likely be another gruesome grilling by David Cameron & Nick Clegg tomorrow afternoon during the weekly session of Prime Minister's Questions.

A Tale of Two Potential Recalls,

Also known as, “At least Gloria didn't find a way to get $20,000 in reimbursements from the city!”

Earlier today, the city clerk in Kansas City, Missouri announced that a committee seeking to recall Mayor Mark Funkhouser fell less than 150 signatures shy of the 16,950 required to trigger a November by-election. The committee that sought the recall pursued the recall, citing that Funkhouser had violated Missouri's nepotism law when he appointed his wife Gloria Squitiro as a full-time volunteer assistant to his office, continuing to do so when the city passed their own ordinance, however by way of meeting with staff at the city's main library. Despite being saved by 150 fans or otherwise apathetic, uninterested, unaware, or uncanvased suburbanites, hopefully the mayor will make amends with critical elements of the city populace before 2011 comes around. KC still has infrastructure to repair.

At least that money can't be sought to reimburse church donations, as the Telegraph today states that Labour MP Frank Cook did just that for a £5 made in 2006. No additional casualties today, but focus turns from new claim reports to the severance pay packages available for MPs that have announced they would not seek re-election. Currently, only one of the 13 MPs bowing out because of the scandal (Speaker Michael Martin) is actually leaving the House before the next election, again to occur no later than June 2010. The remaining 12 (several of whom were also involved in nepotism!) are expecting to sit idly in the back and go home, head secured between their tails, with a hefty retirement package. Unless, of course, they too make their way to the manors at either Chiltern Hundreds or Northstead, or their expense claims warrant criminal prosecution, or Parliament rips away those retirement pensions.

Not an option at the moment are the very petition-driven recalls that have been attempted in KC and also in Portland, Oregon. Citizens have circulated petitions that call on their MP to step down, but those are, legally, mere statements of public opinion. Were this an option, certainly this would be another tool in place to convince a government spiralling out of control and losing support to give up the ghost and put their track record before their constituents. Of course, a recall option would need specific guidelines to make sure that no frivolous reason, mass revolt or a sneaky way to bypass the manors of Chiltern Hundreds & Northstead triggers a recall vote. Already Tory leader David Cameron has suggested that the power of recall be part of sweeping reforms enacted for Parliament.

These remain unprecedented situations, and perhaps one can learn from the other: 1) recalls can work, and 2) nepotism doesn't bode too well in effective democracies. (*cough*Shull*cough*Moriarty*cough*cough*)

Potential benefactors of the MP Expenses Row

Yesterday, three members of the House of Commons (Christopher Fraser, Julie Kirkbride and Margaret Moran) announced that they will not stand for re-election (to be no later than June 2010 under current law.) Today, two more MPs are under fire for their expenses: Bill Cash, a Conservative MP whose £15k claims to rent his daughter's flat when he owns a house closer to Westminster came under fire in today's Telegraph, and Elliot Morley, a Labour MP and one-time minister who is now the 13th casualty of the past month's reports.

These scandals, concerning excesses of a Parliament that can serve anywhere from a few months to five years, then get a severance check for not running for re-election, are taking the forefront of next week's local and European elections. Instead of questions regarding the Lisbon treaty (and Gordon Brown's decision to enact it through Parliament without a public referendum promised by his predecessor Tony Blair) and other pan-European issues, much attention are focused on the public disgust of MP expense excesses. With this albatross potentially weighing down the Labour and Conservative parties, the Liberal Democrats are best able to capitalize, given their current status in the House of Commons as Party #3 and leader Nick Clegg being a vocal proponent of sweeping reforms that others have pitched in the past century. But with the LibDems an established Westminster party (created as a result of the merger of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties in 1988), parties who haven't had much success in Parliamentary elections are vying to gain traction in the UK hope to make a gain next week and make a statement.

(Speaking of statements, all party election broadcasts aired on the BBC are on their Web site. No barrage of sugar-coated 30-second ads here.)

First off is the party that has third-highest representation in the UK's delegation to Strasbourg, the UK Independence Party. Their main goal: keep Strasbourg & Brussels' policy-making out of the UK. They currently have 12 MEPs, and are looking to gain more to establish clout for an entrance into Westminster's elected ranks by next year. While they are third overall, several of their members are former Conservative supporters who turned from the Tories when the UK under John Major signed onto the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, thus establishing the European Union. UKIP put the blame on the EU when it comes to the general decline of UK's economic power, citing reasons nearly identical to what immigration critics and workers unions in the US use for similar problems: porous borders, foreign influence on domestic law & economic policy, among others.

Second is a "party" that sees the expenses row as icing on the cake: Jury Team. Jury Team is set up as a common brand name for independent candidates, and their candidates were selected by use of text messages and other new-age technologies. Jury Team seek to play off the general malaise of the electorate toward the established parties. They have no manifesto outside of fundamental changes to the operation of both Westminster & Strasbourg: term limits, fixed election dates, elimination of party whips, and petition-sparked recall votes and referenda.

Third is a party both UKIP and mainstream parties have sought to keep at bay, the British National Party. Their party rules forbid the admission of non-whites to their party, and their ultra-nationalist policies run akin to the Fascist parties that gained traction in the 1920s and 1930s. In spite of this, they received five percent of the vote in the 2004 European elections, but no seats, and they have been picking up seats on several local councils. Their member base can show greater growth should economic conditions worsen and "Middle Britain" (which is positioned relatively similar to the fabled Missouri bellwether) stay away from the polls, displeased with the three major parties and not interested or aware of the minor parties. This fear during the Great Depression, heightened by the collapse of a Labour minority government in the summer of 1931, resulted in the creation of a series of national coalition governments that lasted until the end of World War II.

Fourth is another Euro-centred party aiming to increase citizen participation in European affairs, Libertas.eu. While they have several branches in other countries that aim to counter the Lisbon Treaty, in the UK its incarnation is Euro-sceptic.

Fifth is a party currently with two MEPs who are a global fixture: the Greens. Their agenda is similar to Green parties across the globe: pro-environment, responsible labelling, pro-civil liberties, etc. etc.

And then you have your really small parties that hope to heck to get at least one percent of the vote: Christian Party, Socialists, Animals Count, etc. etc. It's usually when things go haywire and the wheels come off of the establishment that minor, fringe, and newer parties make their way into the system. A few of these names might find themselves on the world's news tickers six nights from now.

Tea Party?

After those reports Thursday (and I wish to thank everyone who visited, followed my Tweets and Facebook updates, or found this by way of Google), I continued my whirlwind quote-unquote farewell tour of the Show-Me State, saying farewell to my grandparents, aunts, uncles, and the 16+ cats among everyone in the family I visited. Also enjoyed listening to quality locally produced radio programs like those all over Moberly's KRES and KWIX, plus KFRU's Morning Meeting hosted by Simon Rose and Renee Hulshof.

I am now back in KCMO, and this time next week I will be falling asleep in the United Kingdom for my first night as a Missouri expatriate. Er, The Missouri Expatriate. And my arrival in the UK could not come at a more exciting time politics wise.

Right now, it is safe to speculate that the 646 people most hated by United Kingdom residents are not Fred Phelps, Michael Savage, or other people the U.K. Home Office won't let enter the UK. Right now, it's Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary whose husband's sordid spending ways were outed in February, and the other 645 members of the House of Commons caught up in the expenses scandal. And the heads are starting to roll.

Today, Michael Martin announced that on 21 June, he will leave his post as Speaker of the House and subsequently make his way to the Chiltern Hundreds as its new Crown Steward, provided other potentially disgraced MPs don't beat him there and he winds up at the Manor of Northstead. Martin becomes the first speaker in 314 years to effectively be forced out of the position, and pundits are already declaring that Martin has secured a place among the greatest follies of Parliament's long history.

Therefore, on 22 June, the House of Commons will select from its remaining 639 active participants (which does not include the to-be-vacated Glasgow East seat held by Martin or the five Sinn Fein members who still billed UK taxpayers $750,000 despite not ever taking their seats!) a new speaker. This will be the first use of a new formalized voting system (BBC's description here) in lieu of the simpler yet dirtier "smoke-filled room" motion a name, amend in a different name, ayes have it, etc. system. Potential candidates for Speaker must have the backing of 12 MPs, three of whom must be from a party not that of the candidate. Upon certification of the nominations, the candidates are given a chance to speak, and then begins an exhaustive ballot, similar to how Olympic hosts are selected (and how Presidential candidates are suppose to be nominated, but the major parties have turned that process into a PR spectacle.) Once a candidate has a majority begins the dragging and the jovial crowning of the new Speaker.

Meanwhile Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who is doing his darndest to save face in the wake of the U.S. Congress' approval ratings potentially being higher than Parliament's (apples and oranges, but it's worth the analogy) has stated that any Labour MP found to have made excessive expense claims will not be allowed to stand as Labour candidates at the next election, (Telegraph article) which is to happen in June 2010 at the latest. (Given that MEP & local elections are 16 days away, this novice observer anticipates a dissolution of Parliament over the summer and a lot of turnover when the new Parliament takes shape. Even with sweeping new restrictions in place like no swapping second homes and a limit of £1250 a month (thus £15000 annually), the voting public will likely not settle for less than a clean sweep and fast.) Prime the harbour, it's time to dump some tea. Or coffee. Or Throwback Pepsi-Cola?

You might find yourself going after all three when you're done viewing this Telegraph slideshow of Tory expenses for their country second homes. Among the more dubious claims: moat cleaning, lawncare around the helipad, and something involving horse excrement.

---

Also, I would be remiss if I failed to make mention of the scheduled execution tonight (er, tomorrow at 12:01 a.m.) of Dennis Skillicorn, the first execution in Missouri in almost four years. Two more executions have been scheduled.

Thus, mention has been made.

This is what happens when you spend taxpayer funds wrong

Before I finish that thought, first of all my thoughts and prayers are with the residents of Northeast Missouri affected by this afternoon's tornadic activity. One fatality has been reported in Milan, about 35 miles west of Kirksville. The tornado's damage was north of downtown Kirksville and the Truman State University campus.

Now, returning to the bulk of tonight's post, which begins my effort to put a Midwestern perspective on British and European issues.

"What happens when you spend taxpayer funds wrong?" You get your own party members pushing for your recall. The first in 300 years, from the looks of things.

For the past week, The Daily Telegraph has published lists of expense reports filed by members of the British Parliament. Starting last Thursday, a list of expenses acquired through Britain's Freedom of Information Act has embarrassed several MPs on both sets of benches regarding their use of second home expense allowances. (Figures listed with be in British Pounds; current exchange rate is approximately US$1.53 = GB£1.) Most notably is Michael Martin, technically a non-partisan official but previously affiliated with the Labor Party prior to his selection as Speaker of the House of Commons. According to Telegraph's ongoing reports, Martin spent £1400 on chauffeur service around his constituency, including to football matches, and another £3300 on refurbishing his Glasgow flat, mostly on carpeting.

On top of that, the Telegraph (whose editorial board does lean Conservative; however Tory expenses are also under scrutiny in these reports) says that Martin has for the past four years spent £100k to attempt to keep these expense reports from going public. Even after these efforts went in favor of the taxpayer, Commons leadership delayed further on their release, originally told to release it by October of last year but instead announcing they would release it this July. Well, it's out now, and it's not looking pretty.

Among the Telegraph's most startling & high-profile finds:

• The five Sinn Fein members of Parliament, all of whom refuse to take their seats as it would require them to pledge an oath to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and subsequently acknowledge British sovereignty over Northern Ireland, together claimed expenses of over £500,000.
• Several MPs, including then-PM Tony Blair, used allowances from the expenses to refurbish and make profits from selling or re-mortgaging real-estate. In the former PM's case, Blair remortgaged his Sedgefield home for £296,000, then used his expense allowance to pay interest on that and another mortgage for one of five flats he owned in London.
• Current PM Gordon Brown conducted a house-swap upon his elevation to 10 Downing Street, purchasing a home in his constituency, then placing a gardener and cleaner, as well as extensive remodeling, on the public's bill.
• Many other MPs, including Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling, used taxpayer money to pay their taxes. A Conservative shadow cabinet member, Nick Herbert, also has used his allowance to pay taxes and on part of a mortgage on a house in West Sussex he owns with his partner Jason Eades.
  
• Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, who is vocally supportive of the movement to oust Martin over his expenses, claimed the maximum allowed, and one month went overboard. His predecessor Sir Menzies Campbell hired an interior designer to refurbish his London flat for about £10,000.
• David Willets, the Conservative's choice for skills minister, needed help changing light bulbs and had taxpayers foot the bill for that lesson.
  

If anything like this came out from a state government, plenty of fur would be flying. In short, this looks like Bob Griffin & Bill Webster on steroids, and no sneaking in village laws or midwife legalization clauses are going to save the day.

Fortunately, with local elections coming up in a month, several MPs (including Campbell) have announced they are reimbursing the fund for their various claims. Sure some of them are acceptable like basic transportation or rent, but having taxpayers foot the bill for items like new carpets, flat-screen TVs, chauffeurs, and real estate speculation, in a time when people need to reprioritize their spending to weather a significant recession, speaks volumes about the lack of discretion several elected officials have when it comes to appropriate tax funds.

It's probably not appropriate for a future resident to make opinionated comments on this, especially as said government's home office has granted a visa for the next six months, but as I am aiming to be a future resident (and thusly a tax payer), I am curious as to how current UK taxpayers are going to respond to this situation. TEA parties (all caps) were all the rage last month in the States; might they take root in the form of a 4 June statement from the electorate when it comes to local & EU parliamentary results?