Memory is of course a little hazy at this distance in time so perhaps you could look this up for us?

What were the expenses for Gordon Brown’s private office in the years he was Shadow Chancellor (umm, 93 to 97 or so, no?) and who paid them?

Tim –

IF you ask that then surely you can ask what were the expense claims of the Tories that were in power the 18 years previous to Brown?

The Tories and Libertarians who frequent here often say you can’t look that far back – the economic situation today is all to do with Brown and New Labour and nothing to do with Thatcher policy – with asking these questions can we now assume that it is OK to point the finger to where it should be pointed, in the direction of Thatcher or do we simply keep an eye on the New Labour ball?

Full discloser: I am not for Tory nor New Labour – just making a point.

And the Tories will make a disaster worse than it is already.

IMHO.

Tamasin Cave: “Except that in the same year, George also accepted donations, earmarked by donors for staffing his office, of nearly half a million pounds. Suddenly George looks a bit of a spend-thrift.

In contrast, Vince Cable spent £90k on staff.”

I think you should look a bit more at party fund raising culture. In the LibDems, if you raise £100,000, that money goes into the central fund with a wodge going to your constituency or parliamentary office should they need it; money raised by the leader is ring fenced somewhat more. Vince Cable may only have spent £90,000 on direct office costs, but he benefits indirectly from a better funded LibDem policy office.

The Conservatives operate on a more “American” model. George Osborne is more free to keep the contributions that he raises. To do what he wants.

I’m very happy to slam Gideon Boy George as often as possible. But only on actually substantive points

The bulk of this – £79,000 – went on staff costs. Sounds like value for money for a busy shadow chancellor.

Except of course that money is legally obliged to be spent on constituency workers and office staff for his work as an MP and not as a Shadow Cabinet minister.

So it’s not bad value for a constituency MP, but not good either, I think about £80K is the norm last I looked

Except that in the same year, George also accepted donations, earmarked by donors for staffing his office, of nearly half a million pounds

Yes, this would be money spent on his research and press team for his other role as Shadow Chancellor.

Y’know, to pay for the staffing he’d need but isn’t allowed to use his normal MPs allowance on.

@Tim, personally don’t care about previous precedents on what X, Y or Z did in opposition. But then, I think this point is just as spurious.

Oh, the money Vince spends from public funds are for normal staff as constituency MP as well, he spends more than others do, but that’s an issue between him and his constituents, who I’m told are very happy with their local MP.

If George Osbourne is spending much less on constituency staff than other MPs, then either his constituents are getting a raw deal because of his ideological leanings, or he is underpaying his staff. (Or he represents a constituency that doesn’t produce as much casework as other constituencies and hence requires less staff.)

Tim, he isn’t. Very clearly in those figures, he’s spending about £80K, which is about average, Cable only spends £10K more, and last I looked at the figures 880K ish is the norm.

Gah. 80K ish, not 880K. Ah well.

Good article. Whilst public outrage (encouraged by the media) over dodgy parliamentary expenses is perfectly justified and understandable, it’s important not to forget the other ways in which politicians might have suspect monetary dealings going on.

All true, I’m sure. But also hardly fair given that I’m sure many top Labour figures (at least) have similar arrangements – and arguably not exactly shocking in Osborne’s case since everyone knows the Tories represent the wealthy establishment. That’s what you vote for when you tick the ‘Tory’ box. The real story is that ever since Blair made Labour ‘business-friendly’, the exact same applies when you vote Labour.

Both are simply incapable of imposing tough regulations on the City: they require a continued flow of money from the very profiteers who would be the first targets of honest regulation.

I would venture that George Osborne barely knows where his constituency is. Amazingly he manages to claim for a second home that is 10 miles and 20 minutes from the periphery of his constituency. Still its up north.

As for his constituents needs, ho ho – http://www.georgeosborne.co.uk/local_news.php

I was going to compare this to Gordon Brown but his IT skills are such that he does not have a constituency website! (Its alright Gordon its a joke, smile! Then again don’t, please) Alastair Darling,who has a real job can be met every Friday in Edinburgh.

George has a wealthy constituency, many of his constituents go to lawyers rather than their MP. The rest…..who cares.