Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Nadine Dorries: Sisterly Smear Test for Labour Women

ADMIN NOTICE: Nadine Dorries MP is a fascinating subject it seems for some secretive LOL readers. Please do keep the very interesting information coming in comments or to idea@mcr1.poptel.org.uk. Remember I can only print it if it's (a) true and (b) proveable.

The Rhetorically Speaking blog meanwhile catches her spinning a complete load of toss to the Daily Mail.

No serious paper with serious standards and serious journalists would print it. It is not true and it is not proveable after all. It is just a dirty rotten smear. Here is the Mail Story as they don't give a monkeys about truth or fairness. Nads has claimed that prospective candidates receiving grants from an organisation called Emily's List have been somehow dishonest or corrupt or illegal or something (it's a smear - detail is sketchy) in not declaring these.

Actually Nadine Dorries has either been extremely remiss on the matter of engaging her brain, or she is lying through her teeth being a little disingenuous. It would have to be the latter as here (scroll down to Declared Entries) she explains how the limit for any declaration is 1% of salary, or £590 at today's prices. Though now I think it might actually be £1,000.

The website for Emily's List which kindly provided the above picture has an explanation of their purpose and list of total donations for each General Election together with the number of recipients involved. It is unlikely that any grant came close to 1% of salary, still less £1,000. Typically £150 - £250 per grant.

What is more the grants are to help with GETTING SELECTED and may well be completely outwith the scope of any declaration regime anyway. It really is very hard to think of a thinner, meaner, more dishonest story than this one from Nadine Dorries.

The requirements for the scheme are to:

fulfil Labour Party criteria; support the programme and values of the Party and be pro-choice.

Obviously as she keeps reassuring us Nadine is not anti-abortion or pro-life. That makes her pro-choice then? But it strikes LOL that this fuss and this silly smear is all about that criterion. But it must be said that if you don't have goo for brains you would acknowledge that £150-£250 is not about to change anyone's mind on this particular issue.

Meaning that the story that Dorries fed the Mail and that they fed their readers was and is ... absolute bollocks.

Rhetorically Speaking also links to the regulations on "one off" benefits with grants of ten year's vintage NOT in the reckoning.

While we're on the subject of registering interest Nads mentions a declared trip to Wimbledon for the Tennis from Barclays Bank with her then husband, said to be worth £600. Can't see that ever declared in the RMI though.

Nads also explains elsewhere on her site that she is a DAILY COMMUTER (cost £12,000 annually) from Woburn to Westminster and back. This does set alarm bells ringing over her "Cost Of Staying Away From Main Home" allowance of £21,634. Perhaps someone can explain to me just how that one works?

The only things in her declaration are two houses. One in Gloucestershire - producing an income - and one on the coast in South Africa - benefit unspecified. Oh and a three day most-expenses-paid trip to Israel.

Nads claims that she has had no donations whatsoever. Though her Constituency Association does raise money and accept contributions. And then presumably from time to time it passes some cash to Ms Dorries for campaigns?

I've read somewhere that her whacko websites used to be funded from her expenses. This time however, though her parliamentary reports are mentioned, her websites are not. Probably just as well Nads. Probably just as well.


Anonymous said...

Has Nadine Dorries MP got lodgers in her virtually unused by her London pad?

BD said...

There are different limits for different sources of money.

To quote the regulations :

"The financial thresholds over which an interest must be registered are mainly based, for convenience, on percentages of an MP's salary: one per cent or currently £600 for employment, gifts and hospitality; ten per cent or £6,000 for rental income; and a hundred per cent or £60,000 for property and shares. The exception is sponsorship, where the threshold has been set at £1,000 to match that set for registration with the Electoral Commission."

It seems likely that grants given to aid selection fit the latter category, making £1,000 the limit - if that kind of payment is within the scope of the rules at all.

Chris Paul said...

Thanks Bookdrunk. The interpretation on campaigning expenses seems to vary a bit among MPs with some of the new ones declaring things that older ones do not.

Seems to me a £150-£250 grant to pay travel costs or print towards selection to be a candidate could never fall within the scope because of the quantum but also the nature of it.

Nadine Dorries would seem to have spun the Mail a load of old toss and the Mail have quickly spun that on to their poor readers.

Any guidance on the London Home she apparently has no use for? Clearly she could spend 100 nights in a pleasant enough hotel for half the sum claimed. But according to her own potterings she hardly ever doesn't go home of an evening.