Enough oil to start a well
John Bercow describes Nadine Dorries as ‘an oily opportunist’. Oh, sorry, it’s the other way round. Easy mistake to make.
She also describes the election of Bercow as an act of vindictiveness by Labour. She must be right. Nobody can teach Nadine anything about vindictiveness.
And she says Bercow isn’t fit for the job of Speaker because his wife is a socialist. I’ve no idea whether that’s true but I thought we had moved away from that kind of linkage. Are we to assume that Mr Dorries is bonkers because she appears to be?
June 24th, 2009 at 1:38 am
In that MoS article, Dorries stated and I quote ” I have never claimed for gardening,food,a second home for ducks or anything else” In a piece by Chris Gill, BoS 5th June, she stated “I want you to know that I have never claimed for food or petty cash” In her Blogpost entitled Clarification, 21st May, she wrote “I have not claimed the £400 per month food allowance.” After her castigation of David Reeves on the use of the word ‘fought’ when he admitted in a front page piece in BoS that he had never been in combat in Iraq, she wrote on her Blog a post entitled All’s fair in War and Politics, “However, one thing I’ve learnt in the past few weeks is that in the battlefield of politics one needs to be absolutely honest AND precise. Nothing less will do.” Strange then that in her published (parliament site) expenses, it shows she made the following claims: ACA 2006/07 page 17 a claim for £400 FOOD, page 24 a claim for £400 FOOD, page 36 a £400 claim for FOOD. In her 2005/06 ACA page 1 a £400 claim for FOOD. In her Incidentals 2006/07 page 61, a petty cash claim. Page 14 of Incidentals 2005/06 a claim for average taxi journeys at £30.00 per week claiming a round £1200.00 (I assume 40 weeks, a period from 24/05/2005 to 27/02/2006 which must have included holidays and recesses). Also she claimed £176.25 for accountancy work for her 2006/07 Self Assessment Tax Return, which I believe is against IR rules.
So much for her being Absolutely honest AND precise
June 24th, 2009 at 1:43 am
I would just like to add to my previous comment that ALL the information I’ve given can be verified by visiting the parliament website, Dorries Blog and BoS website. It’s all in black and white, as they say.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:10 am
Sometimes, Nadine, subtlety is more effective than bile and vitriol.
As “Mr Squeaker” is going to discover.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:01 am
Dorries appears adamant that she did not claim expenses for food of which she could claim (until recently) an allowance of £400 per month without having to provide receipts. Surely, Frank, she has questions to answer that if the food claims she made were not actually for food, then did she misappropriate her expenses? At the very least BoS,and MoS, and her constituents are owed an apology or explanation.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Maybe Mr Branston could ask her at the business breakfast that they are both attending on Friday…
June 25th, 2009 at 11:14 am
I notice on Dorries blog today, Thursday, she neatly puts any potential problem in her expenses down to her assistant. But she has at last dropped any mention of NEVER having claimed the £400 food allowance.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
She went on a rant claiming that I had no vision for Bedford. On expenses her only response was that she would like to see mine. She did not respond to my offer to show them because I had claimed none over the previous year (and very little at any other time).
June 27th, 2009 at 4:21 am
I find personal exchanges distressing. I don’t think that either Nadine or, to be honest Frank, you do yourselves any favours by sniping. Both of you, I hope, want Bedfordshire to prosper; the question is what the most appropriate policies are to achieve this. By all means state policies and draw attention to failings on the other side, but personal attacks only diminish the standing of those who indulge in such an exercise.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Robert should remember a little exchange from one of the last episodes of “The Goodies”, where the trio are running a petshop.
Tim Brooke-Taylor has a little sign on his desk: “Kindness costs nothing.”
Bill Oddie responds with one of his own: “-but cruelty is more fun!”
June 29th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Dorries dug herself into a hole with regards to her expenses and gave herself little option but to give a cheap retort back to you.Having proclaimed initially in national/local newspapers that she had NEVER claimed for ANYTHING, due to the public being given the rare opportunity to check her self indulgent saintliness by referring to her published expenses it was easly to find otherwise. Claims for food, satnav, fridges, digital cameras, fountain pens, a single taxi journey of £123, petty cash and sef-assessment are SOMETHING. When this was pointed out, she then dug deeper by stating that her PA had done everything with her expenses, she didn’t even seen them (although there is a declaration and authorisation on each claim form which has to be signed by the relevant MP). When comparing the three local MPs, Burt, Dorries and Hall with all the other MPs on the expenses issue, they all come out pretty well. So why Dorries didn’t simply state that she had claimed reasonable expenses (in comparison) is beyond me. At least this episode gives us some measure of her modus opperandi.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Indeed, I’ve met Mrs Branston and was completely charmed by her. Does it follow that Mr Branston is automatically as charming also?
July 1st, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Re. Quentin: Mad Nad´s ducking and diving over her expenses makes me curious as to why David Cameron has not positioned her for the high junp. It cannot be for her political contributions as with the exception of trying to bring about more mothers with families they can`t cope with she has made none.
Re. William Herbert`s comment:
Indeed it doesn`t, which is exactly my point. The fact that Mrs Bercow may be a socialist - if it is a fact, and I would need corroboration from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales before I believed anything she says - doesm’t mean John Bercow is one, as she implies.