OK, so a mild breach of the rules about spending Parliamentary allowances (that's taxpayers money to you and I) on your website isn't that bad. But a friendly and self-styled "avid reader" of this blog has contacted me about the Labour MP, Frank Cook's website. You see, Frank has said that the site is "FUNDED THROUGH PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCE" which means he has to follow some rules (pictured).Use a party political logo are allowed if they are "proportionate and discreet", however, the rules do state that the website should make clear that any complaints about content be made initially to the Director of Finance and Administration at the House of Commons (which for example, is what Frank Field MP does on his website.
However, like I say, I'm not really bothered by the minor rule breaking. I can even let go the rather party political feel to the whole thing. What I found more amusing personally was the page giving information on surgeries.
Gives a new meaning to the tag line at the bottom of the page saying "...for the whole Borough" doesn't it? On the plus side he has tabled 103 Early Day Motions in the last 18 years, although it's a little concerning that according to his own website at least, he managed to not speak in a debate from 2004 until 2007. Does anyone know what the record upon Parliamentary inactivity actually is?
10 comments:
You missed the best bit which is the fully length "couldnt get it published but wrote it anyway" biography:
http://www.frankcookmp.com/biography2.shtml
Care to comment on the political neutrality of your mate Nadine's blog, funded from the Incidental Expenses Provision?
Sure, as Tim "I'm not an obsessive fat watser in Guildford" Ireland noted quite clear, Nadine's site is "funded from the Incidental Expenses Provision and not the new Communications Allowance". Frank Cook says his site is funded by the "Parliamentary Allowance". What's your point exactly?
In terms of a record for 'Parliamentary inactivity', surely Blair has to be right up there with the very best?
The point would be, Dizzy, that the regulations covering the use of the imprimatur of parliament - the Portcullis device - and Incidental Expenses Provision are the same as those which apply to the Communications Allowance.
The only difference is that CA guide spells this out in more explicit detail.
It's perfectly clear, in your rather infantile example, that if Cook is funding his site from an part of his parliamentary allowances other than his salary, then he is in breach of regulations - at the very least the Labour logo has to go to bring his site back within the rules and the Standards Committee would be well within its rights to instruct him to repay any sums used from allowances to produce the site.
Really, Dizzy, is this the best you can muster?
What is infantile mate is you're inability to read the words:
"However, like I say, I'm not really bothered by the minor rule breaking. I can even let go the rather party political feel to the whole thing. What I found more amusing personally was the page giving information on surgeries."
Really Unity, is criticising me for saying that I don't give a shit about the minor rule breaking by suggesting I do give a shit about it whilst ignoring the blatent piss taking out of the surgeries page the best you can muster?
Try again.
Tit for tat, in the best tradition of political backbiting. Would Dizzy even have thought of knocking a Labour MP's website if somneone hadn't had a go at precious Nadine's?
:rollseyes:
yes that's right, I only did it because of something someone else did rather than because someone emailed me the link and I saw the opportunity tio take the piss out his surgeries page and also say "I'm not really bothered by the minor rule breaking" whilst simulatenously it is suggested by dickheads in the comments that I'm really saying the opposite.
One day I will understand why people discussiiong any sort of politics online have a complete inability to read sometimes. Now kindly fuck off and go to the opticians and then back to school.
You're so not bothered by the minor rule breaking that you based a 130 word introduction on it.
Is there a limit to the number of words that deifne what one is bothered about now?
Post a Comment