Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Watchdog to quiz Osborne on mortgage claims… but not Darling

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 July 2009
WESTMINSTER'S sleaze watchdog is to investigate a complaint that shadow chancellor George Osborne overclaimed on his MP's allowances for his constituency home.
John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, yesterday accepted a complaint made against Mr Osborne by a Labour activist in his Tatton constituency in Cheshire.

By contrast, Mr Lyon's office also made clear he would not be acting upon
a similar complaint made against Chancellor Alistair Darling.

Mr Darling, MP for Edinburgh South West, had faced accusations that he had "flipped" the designation of his second home four times in four years to maximise the amount he could claim from public funds.

That was lodged on the same day as the complaint against Mr Osborne, amid signs of a tit-for-tat row and had been denied by the Chancellor.

Mr Osborne was "relaxed" about Mr Lyon's decision – which was ratified by a committee of senior MPs – but it is embarrassing for the Tory high command, as it threatens to undermine the shadow chancellor in the run-up to the General Election.

Mr Osborne is among 90 Conservative MPs to have repaid money to public funds, returning £1,195 that included £440 for a chauffeured late-night journey.

He is accused of claiming for monthly interest repayments on a £450,000 mortgage, despite having bought the property for cash – by extending the mortgage on his London home – for £445,000. He had bought the Cheshire farmhouse ten months before being elected an MP.

Mr Lyon confirmed in a letter to Laurie Burton, chairman of the Tatton Labour Party, that he had decided to investigate this aspect of his complaint.

However, he said no action would be taken on allegations that Mr Osborne had "flipped" between properties and avoided paying capital gains tax. The latter was an issue for HM Revenue and Customs, Mr Lyon said.

Mr Burton yesterday denied his complaint was politically motivated, insisting he was acting as an ordinary voter feeling "outrage and disgust" over widespread abuses of the system.

"When they (expenses details] were published I was extremely concerned at the way he flipped his mortgages on his first and second homes in order to claim the maximum amount possible on mortgages and also to avoid paying capital gains tax," he said.

A spokesman for Mr Osborne said the total cost, including repairs, of moving into the farmhouse had been in excess of £480,000. He said Mr Osborne currently claimed "close to zero" on the property because interest rates were so low.

He said: "George has never switched designation for personal advantage. There has been absolutely no impropriety.

"His actions have been entirely reasonable, as all the costs are associated with his need to have a second home."

• Some 264 MPs have repaid a total of almost £650,000 in expenses in the past three months, it was revealed yesterday.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 02 July 2009 11:48 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Politicians' expenses
 
1

Electric Hermit,

03/07/2009 01:29:44
2
Cynicus in Exile

"Then amend the laws on seizing assets from drug-dealers, money launderers and other crooks and fraudsters so that they apply to corrupt MPs."

Those laws might apply. But only AFTER conviction. A little legal nicety that you apparently want to ignore. That's the thing with you Angry Villagers. Because you spout your drivel without thinking you inevitably end up talking a lit of shot.

On the one hand, you demand that the same law should apply to MPs as applies to everyone else. In the next breath, you want MPs punished without the inconvenience of a trial and evidence and all that nonsense.

And still the inherent contradiction eludes you.

2

Fletty73,

Stirling 03/07/2009 01:49:47
MPs are superior humans to non-MPs.
Therefore just pay them what they ask.
They deserve it,
3

,

03/07/2009 01:58:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

steve 1511,

aberdeen 03/07/2009 05:31:08
why is eric joyce the mp for falkirk west who claimed second home allowances on his main home not being hunted down by the polis and why has broon the gibbering eejit not sacked him
5

donald,

glasgow 03/07/2009 05:54:40
Complaining to a Labour Sleazebag Committee about Labour sleazebags is as pointless as Complaining to the 'Northbritishperson' about Jerry Springer's filth.

Now you know what it feels like to face a Campbell Jury.
6

Joe Plaice,

the Nutmeg of Consolation 03/07/2009 07:18:26
Typical double standards from the NuLiebore trough snuffler's party. Investigate everyone else but not oor wee Darling. Don't you just want to pinch his wee chubby cheek? And then knee him in the goolies!
7

Grahamski,

Falkirk 03/07/2009 07:20:21
7
Errr, because he didn't break any rules. Mr Joyce didn't claim for anything 'outwith the rules'. Just like Mr Salmond nad his SNP colleagues....
8

dunedin bully wee 1877,

03/07/2009 07:28:20
Now that Jim Devine has been “shelved” by the Labourites, does that mean he gets to keep the money?
9

Herry Oaksters,

03/07/2009 07:30:04
Labour = hypocritical scumbags.
10

Grahamski,

Falkirk 03/07/2009 07:34:08
11
Interesting question, I do hope the answer is no.
Will Mr Salmond keep the £103,000 he's going to get when he steps down as a MP or will he do what he promised and donate it to charity?
11

Herry Oaksters,

03/07/2009 07:35:44
Im still laughing at thick as mince David Whittons performance on newsnight , what a tube.
12

DialMforMurdoX,

03/07/2009 07:39:15
#10 As I live and breath, the very first Eric Joyce apologist!

Not paying capital gains tax on your first/second/first/second home is not within the rules and is not an invasion of your privacy by simply asking the question.
13

Grahamski,

Falkirk 03/07/2009 07:44:09
15
He didn't own the home when it was sold. He was not liable for CGT for the simple reason that he didn't make any capital gains from the sale. The privacy question relates to the details of his divorce.
14

dunedin bully wee 1877,

03/07/2009 07:45:39
13 Grahamski,

I am unaware of any such promise.

However, if he has indeed promised to do that, I have no reason to believe that he will not carry it out.
15

Grahamski,

Falkirk 03/07/2009 07:49:14
17
Glad to hear it, I do hope he doesn't need the prodding and 'encouragement' needed to make him pay the small portion of his salary to charity that he so loudly promised he would......
16

dunedin bully wee 1877,

03/07/2009 07:53:20
18 Grahamski


What “prodding and encouragement” was that again?
17

Phil C,

03/07/2009 07:56:45
Stranger and darker, this Labour sleaze!
18

Grahamski,

Falkirk 03/07/2009 08:10:16
19
The prodding and encouragement needed to make him donate a small portion of his salary to charity like he promised. Mr Salmond had to be 'reminded' to pay.
19

Scottish and Proud,

Glasgow 03/07/2009 08:21:34
Grahamski-joyce you are the only person that could possibly try to defend the low lifer that is Joyce.

The good news is I am sure the good people of Falkirk will give this no user his P45,whenever Toom Tabbard Brown eventually works up the courage to call the election.

Tick tock!!!
20

,

03/07/2009 08:22:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

dunedin bully wee 1877,

03/07/2009 08:26:05
22 Grahamski

Reminded by whom and when?

22

ddmc,

03/07/2009 08:26:58
#3 have the MP's committed fraud ? I can't believe that 264 MP's who are allegedly intelligent people who we trust to govern the country, all made mistakes with expenses & payments, maybe one or two did.

So should they be prosecuted for fraud as you & i would be or should they be sacked for gross negligence ? This would seem to be the only way to remove these fraudsters, a nice prison sentence, even then they would find a way to the trough.

But we cannot sack a sitting MP there is no law to do this, a bit like not being able to strip peerages from politically appointed lords. At least with the heridtary peers you knew where you stood.

The current crop of politicians are corrupt to the core & if the other 400 odd supposedly "clean" MP's truely had any decency they would force out the fraudsters.
23

Scottish and Proud,

Glasgow 03/07/2009 08:48:02
No anti SNP story ,so it will be a quiet day on the threads.
Our unionist trolls with a few exceptions will slither under their stones till some obscure link can be found to attack Scotland ,and the SNP.
Quite pthetic really ,and shows how shallow these people really are,and how irrelevant their parties are to the needs of Scotland.
24

Electric Hermit,

03/07/2009 08:50:48
6
Cynicus in Exile

"Where on earth do you get that idea, you pompous twit?"

I don't doubt that you deployed the full force of your intellect in composing that response.

25

Electric Hermit,

03/07/2009 08:57:03
26
ddmc

"So should they be prosecuted for fraud as you & i would be..."

You and I would only be prosecuted for fraud if there was sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution with a reasonable possibility of securing a conviction. I see no good reason why the same should not apply to MPs.

Unlike the Angry Villagers, I don't just preach one law for all, I practice it.
26

,

03/07/2009 09:02:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

Electric Hermit,

03/07/2009 09:11:01
30
spagan

Let me see...

On the one hand I have a team of "caselaw" experts from the Metropolitan Police Service and Crown Prosecution Service - having access to all the facts - telling me there is, in most instances, insufficient evidence for a prosecution with a reasonable chance of securing a conviction.

And on the other hand I have a mob of wall-eyed, slack-jawed Angry Villagers waving their pitchforks and screaming for blood.

Who to believe...

28

Scottish and Proud,

Glasgow 03/07/2009 09:11:08
Electric hermit , as one of the "angry villagers" I am incensed at the antics of Westminster.
It only reconfirms my desire to rid Scotland of the millstone that is London Rule.

The government has a radio advertisement running just now extolling the fact that there are over 3,ooo investigators hunting down benefit cheats.
If found to be suspected ,they will be thoroughouly investigated ,prosecuted ,and possibly given a jail sentence.
Most of these frauds are committed by the poorest in society for sums of money far less than the trough dwellers of Westminster have been helping themselves to.
The benefit cheats are wrong and rightly shoud face the full might of British justice.
what is galling for us "angry villagers" is that our Hnourable Members of Westminster it seems are to get off untouched ,with no blemish on their character ,and to boot will get huge severance ,and pension payments.

29

Electric Hermit,

03/07/2009 09:14:46
32
Scottish and Proud

Evidence.

30

Scottish and Proud,

Glasgow 03/07/2009 09:18:50
33 Electric , I am not the investigator ,however if in the eyes of the political parties there has been enough "wrongdoing" to unseat these people it makes one think that there must be enough evidence IF there is a will on the part of the authorities.
That is what concerns me has some sort of "deal" been done so as not to harm the Mother of Parliaments further?

If benefit cheats claiming an extra £20 a week are deemed fraudulent enough to prosecute why no MPs?
31

,

03/07/2009 09:23:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

Electric Hermit,

03/07/2009 09:23:54
34
Scottish and Proud

"...if in the eyes of the political parties there has been enough "wrongdoing" to unseat these people it makes one think that there must be enough evidence..."

The parties' internal procedures are not comparable to a court of law.

"...has some sort of "deal" been done so as not to harm the Mother of Parliaments further?"

Bit late for that. But never too late for a good conspiracy theory.

"If benefit cheats claiming an extra £20 a week are deemed fraudulent enough to prosecute why no MPs?"

Evidence.

33

Scottish and Proud,

Glasgow 03/07/2009 09:31:24
Well Electric are you honestly trying to tell us you believe this is all just innocent mistakes and wrong form filling?

Bit late for that. But never too late for a good conspiracy theory.

well perhaps you can explain o us why theses people have been expelled form their parties but not pursued with the full vigour of the law?
As spagan said justice must be seen to be done


34

Electric Hermit,

03/07/2009 09:32:21
35
spagan

"These are not ordinary people. They are our elected reps."

Are you suggesting there should be a special law just for them? A lesser standard of proof?

"...every one should be investigated."

Every allegation has been, or is being, examined by the Met/CPS panel. Quite rightly, they will not waste the courts' time with cases having no possibility of a conviction.

Do you even know what is required in order for a charge of criminal fraud to be proved? Maybe you should find out.

"Some of your favourite peasants may not be happy..."

I don't have favourites. And the unhappiness of "peasants" carries no weight in a court of law. Maybe you'd prefer "Special Courts"? Tribunals of Angry Villagers, perhaps? Tumbrils and guillotines? Getting exited yet?



35

Scottish and Proud,

glasgow 03/07/2009 09:40:17
MPs rejected by three votes a clause in the government's Parliamentary Standards Bill to allow their proceedings to be used in court against an errant MP, breaking the long standing right to Parliamentary privilege

this is nearer the mark , it is not that they have not done wrong ,they are improperly provided with protection from prosecution that othe members of scoiety do not receive
36

Electric Hermit,

03/07/2009 09:45:40
37
Scottish and Proud

"Well Electric are you honestly trying to tell us you believe this is all just innocent mistakes and wrong form filling?"

Whatever the voices in your head may be saying, I'm not trying to tell you anything. The joint panel convened by the Metropolitan Police Service and Crown Prosecution Service is telling all of us that, in most instances, there is insufficient evidence to warrant pursuing a prosecution.

Do I believe them? Or do I believe the Angry Villagers? Not much of a dilemma.

"well perhaps you can explain o us why theses people have been expelled form their parties but not pursued with the full vigour of the law?"

Already did. It is remarkable that anyone should have to. The standard of proof required for an internal disciplinary proceeding is far, far less than that required in a court of law. I would have thought that is obvious.

37

,

03/07/2009 09:48:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

Electric Hermit,

03/07/2009 09:50:07
39
Scottish and Proud

So you don't understand the importance of parliamentary privilege. No surprise there.

39

Electric Hermit,

03/07/2009 09:52:56
41
spagan

"Given your same affliction, I wonder whether you are an MP or paid by an MP or his/her party."

You are an idiot. I have not defended anything other than due legal process.

And, because you are an idiot, you will naturally believe whatever BS pops into your idiot's head.

40

Electric Hermit,

03/07/2009 09:57:20
41
spagan

"In case you don't know, it is the Courts that consider evidence and determine whther a case is 'proved' or not."

Your ignorance of the justice system is all but perfect. You obviously don't know that there are numerous tests which a case must undergo before ever getting to court. If there is no possibility of securing a conviction, it is an irresponsible waste of resources to prosecute.



41

Scottish and Proud,

Glasgow 03/07/2009 10:00:40
electric Hermit ,as was stated earlier you are a pompous git!
42

Electric Hermit,

03/07/2009 10:08:17
45
Scottish and Proud

"electric Hermit ,as was stated earlier you are a pompous git!"

Perhaps. But I'd rather be a well-informed "pompous git" who respects the law than a ranting idiot.

43

Scottish and Proud,

glasgow 03/07/2009 10:13:28
46 Hermit
Perhaps. But I'd rather be a well-informed "pompous git" who respects the law than a ranting idiot

a very good friend of mine who incidentally is a Sherrif said
"There is law ,and there is justice"
That is the bit you do not seem able to grasp
44

,

03/07/2009 10:16:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
45

Electric Hermit,

03/07/2009 10:17:00
47
Scottish and Proud

There is no justice without the rule of law. That is the bit you do not seem able to grasp.

46

Electric Hermit,

03/07/2009 10:20:16
48
spagan

"Mmm - you are a tad touchy about this?"

It is true that I do not suffer fools gladly. Only natural, therefore, that you would rest my patience.

"Don't take it personally. Unless of course you are an MP or paid by an MP? Ffffoulkkkesssyy???"

My point is proved.

47

,

03/07/2009 10:28:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
48

Sam.B.O.,

Edinburgh 03/07/2009 10:49:26
To get a full account of this story go to

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6474725.ece

I dont know about you but I find the way Osborne (who comes from an already wealthy family) has used taxpayers money to finance his house purchases for considerable personal financial gain

This is not an expenses issue but a moral and ethical issue

Not only has he used his privileged position to use the system for financial gain his behavior has contributed to the property bubble including moving recently to an even bigger London house 250 metres from his old house - I am sure to take advantage of the depressed property market and very low mortgage interest rates - he will probably sell this new house in a few years for considerable profit when property prices go back up (and contributing to a new property bubble)- while else move to a house 250 meteres from your old one

And you wander why we had a property bubble and crash - of course he can speculate like this as he is already 'filthy" rich

Would you trust this man as your future Chancellor
49

dunedin bully wee 1877,

03/07/2009 11:02:57
52 Sam.B.O.,

Would you trust Darling as your continuing Chancellor?

Our choice in Scotland is wider than that.

50

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 03/07/2009 11:40:44
10 Graham

You have absolutely no way of knowing whether he broke the rules (or the law for that matter) or not. That is simply your opinion.
51

,

03/07/2009 11:49:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
52

The Deil,

03/07/2009 13:35:07
#55
You are probably correct! And I further suspect that Electric Hermit is ALSO he!
An analysis of both their postings, excruciatingly painful as that was, makes their duplicity likely!
53

Yeah1,

03/07/2009 16:00:25
#52


"Would you trust Darling as your continuing Chancellor?

Our choice in Scotland is wider than that."

Er...no its not. Scotland will have either Darling or (more likely) Osborne as chancellor in 2010, just like the rest of the UK.

Even if the SNP get a referendum in 2010, and even if Scotland votes 'yes' to independence it will be at least 3-5 years after before Scotland officially becomes independent - so we are stuck with either Darling or Osborne as chancellor.
54

Eve,

Scotland 03/07/2009 16:26:40
Bysim!!!!
55

Queen D,

03/07/2009 20:23:18
See there's a wee handbags at dawn spat going on.
In the red corner the ever so lovely Ben Bradshaw and in the blue corner an ever so angry Alan Duncan.

Homophobia> Racism > Bigotry all used to stifle debate, it's easy when you know how!
All you have to do is accuse, therafter the only defence is " Am no!"
God! It makes me so angry!
What the hell happened to tie us all up in knots?

And while I'm at I don't get this lets all wear a pink stetson and parade about the streets proclaiming our sexuality.
See, I think sexuality is personal and should only be revealed on a need to know basis.
Call me old fashioned.
56

Electric Hermit,

03/07/2009 22:23:21
55
The Deil

Another tedious nutter who thinks everybody is secretly a different person pretending to be somebody else.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.