Thursday, May 14, 2009

Parliamentary Communications Allowance: PR Paul Due For a Fall?

WORK IN PROGRESS: Aiming to add links and pics and updates later.

Iain Dale suggests that David Cameron should ban his MPs from further use of the Communications Allowance. Although many of them voted against the thing almost 90% (174 of 196) including Cameron himself, have drawn down part of this money, with some of the 22 abstainers using part of the ACA or Office heading for parliamentary communications.

Clearly the current favourite excuse for the arguably ineligible donor and vulture capitalist Michael Ashcroft's millions is the ability of incumbents of all parties to spend parliamentary allowances. So perhaps Gordon Brown should get in on the act and declare a truce on the PCA, so long as Ashcroft hops on board his Flying Lion jet, with which he has been taking the mick over the "travel costs" concession on the ineligible donor rules, buggers off back to Belize with his ill-gotten gains.

Of course most of the Lib Dem MPs voted against this allowance. Knowing full well that they would lose the vote and that they could still fill their boots.

Whether apparently printing "Taxpayer" stuff at a premium on their own presses, thereby subsidising party political print, or giving their mates contracts for web sites ... This being a reference to the disgraceful use of Public Funds by Paul Rowen MP to feather the nest of one of his allies - Malcolm Porn-O Journeaux, whose Rochdale Online Web Solutions (ROWS) is a beneficiary of the Tax Payers' funding, while his Rochdale Online publication freely pimps Paul Rowen MP, covering up his hypocrisy, idiocy and story mangling.

Of course Paul Rowen MP used Rochdale Online to spearhead a pre-emptive attack on supposedly official Labour Party bloggers, suggesting that the many seriously true stories about his mentor and benefactor Sir Cyril Smith MBE were untrue and sleazy and that he would sue if they were repeated in inky media. The stories we've used, so far, have in fact been covered in reputable national, regional and local publications. And while they were about sleazy behaviour ... they were also true!

Paul Rowen's evil henchman and drunkard-about-town Dave Hennigan assured Porn-O that this smear story was true by giving him a load of cock and balls about having written to Ray Collins, Labour Party General Secretary, asking him to condemn Labour of Love and other investigative sites. As far as we know that letter was never written, never mind sent. We were eyeball-to-eyeball and the other chaps blinked.

While this may be no more than a coincidence, there is a clear pattern with semi-mucky art photographer and Porn-Again Christian Porn-O's online organ pretty much ignoring and stymieing adverse Rowen comment and news, while suppressing much Labour good news, more so ever since the PCA contract was won. Even cropping a picture and editing a story to remove Labour's PPC.

Porn-O and Henn are said to be cooking up a disgraceful politically motivated smear campaign against the Labour PPC. There have been signs of it in comments on this blog for more than a year, and also in comments and contributions in Rochdale Online's community forum, where Beer Speckled Henn had also promised and indeed wagered £100 that he would "get rid" of one of his Labour rivals within weeks.

That latter attempt by Henn to smear a leading Labour figure in the town hit the buffers in an obvious defamation calamity. Though being an unreliable liar he didn't make good his bets.

That attempted smear was to use the old tried and trusted "paedo" smear route, based on revival of a totally discredited smear from sometime back in the dark ages. Makes Damian McBride look like a rank amateur actually. All Henn did really was draw attention to the sex and power abuse allegations against Sir Cyril Smith MBE. Allegations which had been made to "go away" in a formal sense when a blubbing Cyril called in some favours.

Approached by proper journalists the police bust Henn's craven lies wide open, with the police incidentally sharing some juicy tittle tattle with certain journalists in the process. Ouch. Two own goals.

Even Porn-O wouldn't run that one. His son and his partner are raving Libdemologist loons. And Henn himself was the whirling dervish DJ who stroked his wheels of steel at Porn-O's comedy wank-rock gigs. But even Porn-O cannot run clearly libelous, actionable stories. Even for his bessie mates. After all his shareholders include a respected local solicitor and also the respectable Oldham Chronicle news organisation.

Porn-O's journalistic principles will I think be tested in coming weeks as some heavy duty Sir Cyril/Paul Rowen expenses and donations questions are raised in high places. Not to mention suggestions of the thickness of thieves. You read it here first. The Telegraph have all Rowen's receipts of course. And he is an "Open Book" warrior. So he won't mind if everyone takes a close look. Strange really that he hasn't uploaded his own records for public scrutiny already.

We suggest that the Telegraph take a look, and sharpish. And also Rowen's office rent, his landlord, and his constituency party's submitted accounts. Sadly and strangely now dried up.

LOL understand from a statement, live on BBC News 24 this morning, that Tony Lloyd MP (Labour, Man Central), who was of course subject of a pathetic attempt at dark arts McBridivism by Rowen's evil lying helper Adam "the Power" Power, is expecting to publish his expenses this coming Monday. Will PR Paul not match this?

FOOTNOTE: The MP's "Putting Rowen First" ROWS site, funded by the taxpayer don't forget, is even up for an award ... ahem, sponsored by and judged by ROWS.


Anonymous said...

Surely now is the time to start asking some very hard questions about the funding of Tory constituencies communications by Ashcroft, the Midlands Industrial Council and others. Looking at past Tory national campaign expenditure returns for the EU and General Elections it would appear that the Tories are working on the assumption that such expenditure does not count towards the overall limits. If I were them I wouldn’t be to sure. That Act makes it very clear that expenditure undertaken by Tory Constituency Associations (which are accounting units for the purpose of the Act) counts towards the national limits and hence should be reported on the returns (see section 72(8)(a) below), with invoices being audited and submitted to the Commission. And the definition of what counts as campaign expenditure is set very wide see section 72(4)(b) below

Perhaps someone could explain why all the “Ashcroft/MIC money” shouldn’t count towards the national expenditure limit. Of course the total limit for the European Elections is about £2m and covers all relevant expenditure during the preceding 12 months so may already have been broken if the “Ashcroft/MIC money” were to be included.

Surely this is something that the Electoral Commission should be considering very seriously, given that we are now less than 12 months away from the General Election.

72.—(1) The following provisions have effect for the purposes of this
(2) “Campaign expenditure”, in relation to a registered party, means
(subject to subsection (7)) expenses incurred by or on behalf of the party
which are expenses falling within Part I of Schedule 8 and so incurred for
election purposes.
(3) “Election campaign”, in relation to a registered party, means a
campaign conducted by the party for election purposes.
(4) “For election purposes”, in relation to a registered party, means for
the purpose of or in connection with—
(a) promoting or procuring electoral success for the party at any
relevant election, that is to say, the return at any such election
of candidates—
(i) standing in the name of the party, or
(ii) included in a list of candidates submitted by the party
in connection with the election; or
(b) otherwise enhancing the standing—
(i) of the party, or
(ii) of any such candidates,
with the electorate in connection with future relevant elections
(whether imminent or otherwise).
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)—
(a) the reference to doing any of the things mentioned in paragraph
(a) or (as the case may be) paragraph (b) of that subsection
includes doing so by prejudicing the electoral prospects at the
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 c. 41 57
Part V
election of other parties or candidates or (as the case may be) by
prejudicing the standing with the electorate of other parties or
(b) a course of conduct may constitute the doing of one of those
things even though it does not involve any express mention
being made of the name of any party or candidate; and
(c) it is immaterial that any candidates standing in the name of the
party also stand in the name of one or more other registered
(6) “Relevant election” has the same meaning as in Part II.
(7) “Campaign expenditure” does not include anything which (in
accordance with any enactment) falls to be included in a return as to
election expenses in respect of a candidate or candidates at a particular
(8) Where a registered party is a party with accounting units—
(a) expenses incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of any
accounting unit of the party shall be regarded as expenses
incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the party, and
(b) references to campaign expenditure incurred or to be incurred by
or on behalf of a registered party accordingly extend, in relation
to the party, to expenses which constitute such expenditure by
virtue of paragraph (a).
(9) In this section “candidates” includes future candidates, whether
identifiable or not.
(10) Nothing in this Part applies in relation to expenses incurred or to
be incurred by or on behalf of a minor party.

Chris Paul said...

Thanks anonymous

I'll stick this on the face of the blog.

HMRC said...

Just how and how much does Dave Hennigan get paid?

Who employs Adam Power?

Anonymous said...

What would Lord Razzle say?

Porn Again said...

probably advise getting down on knees... to pray

Praise the Lord and pass the chequebook.