Shane Croucher

I recently received some exposure from a Liberal Democrat website run by councillors in Rochford. They highlighted my article on voting in local elections. You can find their post here.

I was then alerted to an article on their Conservative opponent Councillor Stephen Castle’s blog. He said:

I was also struck this evening by two posts on the Lib Dem web site. Firstly one that promotes the Blog of a journalism student in Rochford – clearly the Lib Dems seem pretty excited because there is some implied criticism of the local Tories but the language on the site http://shanecroucher.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/use-your-box-when-voting-locally/ is completely  unacceptable and I am surprised that the Rayleigh Lib Dems need to stoop so low as to promote it.

This rather irritated me. I hadn’t set out to target the Tory Party. I used a hypothetical Tory candidate to illustrate a point I was trying to make. As for my criticism of James Duddridge MP- I can’t help that he’s a Tory. In my post on his expenses I make no judgement on his belonging to the Conservatives. So the “implied criticism” that Cllr Castle seems to have found puzzled me. Frankly, it appears that he was clutching at straws in trying to find a way of digging at the Lib Dems.

He refers to my language as “completely unacceptable”. In twelve posts I’ve sworn seven times. It’s hardly a tirade of expletives. To misrepresent my writing as such is wrong and I once again suggest that Cllr Castle is putting his own spin on things to try and have a cheap shot at his opponents.

I e-mailed him a few days ago to express my annoyance – he didn’t reply. He’s since put up posts on his blog so I expect he has seen my e-mail. I’ve decided to put it up here. Maybe he didn’t like what I said. Do you think any of it is inappropriate?

Hello there.
 
I’m writing in response to the criticism that I seem to have received on your website.
 
I’d like to know in what way the language I used is ‘completely unacceptable’. It’s my own, personal blog. I didn’t ask for exposure, although I appreciate it, from the Lib Dems. Swear words, like it or not, are a part of the English language. If I had been swearing every other word, making my blog unreadable, perhaps I would have accepted your statement. But to misrepresent my blog as some kind of foul-mouthed rant is wrong and offensive. The idea that promoting my writing is ’stooping’ is unjust. I wonder, if the shoe had been on the other foot…
 
Perhaps if you had read the blog article free from Tory emotion, you would have realised that I was only using a Tory candidate as a hypothetical example. I think most reasonable people would have realised this. So, actually, there isn’t any ‘implied Tory criticism’.
 
As for the blog on Jame Duddridge, where is the Tory criticism in that?
 
It’s this kind of cheap, party-political mud-slinging that’s putting so many people off of politics. Do you actually care about election issues, or are you more bothered about losing face over perceived criticism from a student blogger?
 
I’d suggest that people who stick so rigidly to party politics are politically naive. People don’t care for Labour, Tory, Lib Dem – they care about what you (as an elected representative) can or will do for them.
 
I would appreciate an apology and a retraction.
 
Regards,
 
Shane Croucher

Even if Cllr Castle doesn’t want to apologise or retract his unfair criticism, a reply would have been courteous.

It looks like he’s already been called out anyway.

Following the Daily Telegraph’s coverage of the MPs’ expenses scandal and the subsequent public furore, My local MP for Rochford and Southend East, James Duddridge, published his expenses in full on his website. Amongst the Cameron-kissing, grovelling and “I didn’t mean it”s I’ve selected a few snippets to take issue with.

Mr Duddridge said:

“I believe that honesty and transparency are the best ways to deal with the issue of Members of Parliaments’ allowances”

Well, if he really does advocate transparency, why has he voted “moderately against” having a more transparent Parliament? I think we can see through his mock-sincere ‘beliefs’ (excuse the pun).

Mr Duddridge employs his wife to work one day a week to the tune of £3733 per year. He said:

“She usually works in the constituency office, where she helps to plan my constituency engagements as well as doing data entry and general administrative duties”

Now, this may well be honest work. I doubt that there is any cheating the system here. However, there is still an issue to be addressed. Employing a relative to work for you whilst you’re in public office is dodgy territory. Firstly, you may not get the same level of work from a relative compared to a regular employee. The job may not be valued as highly to them as it would to a person who has to be passionate and committed in order to keep the job. So there are questions to be raised about the standard of the work provided. Will you get your money’s worth from a relative?

Secondly, there’s the increased risk of corrupt behaviour. A relative may be more inclined to dispose of some incriminating letters or turn a blind eye. A regular employee has a professional relationship not personal, and so is less likely to be swayed into cover-ups and the like. It’s just best to steer clear of employing family.

My next issue with Mr Duddridge’s statement lies here:

“Last year the majority of my Additional Cost Allowance was used up on mortgage interest payments for my flat. In addition it was used to pay for utilities, service charges and council tax….In my first year as a Member of Parliament I stayed in a hotel or more commonly stayed with a friend at no cost to the taxpayer. I then moved into a flat I have owned since 2001, which was purchased as an investment and was rented out prior to my election and has been rented out subsequently. In late 2006 I purchased a property that is within short walking distance of the House of Commons, which I now stay in when working late in London.”

And here:

“In the four years since I have been a Member of Parliament I have spent around £900 on kitchen, bedroom and bathroom items. In the first financial year that I was a Member of Parliament I claimed £7,000, relating to building repairs and internal redecoration.”

So rather than Mr Duddridge using his wages to pay for “utilities, service charges and council tax” and “kitchen, bedroom and bathroom items” he used public money. This is totally unacceptable. These are not the financial responsibility of the taxpayer. He used tax revenue to pay for his own council tax. That’s just not on. As well as this he payed his utility bills with it too. Another abuse. All of these are unethical claims, aimed at saving himself a few quid at the taxpayer’s expense. Whether or not the system allowed it, it was wrong to claim.

However, there is an even bigger issue in the previous quotes. Mr Duddridge has owned a flat in London since 2001. He rents it out. It’s his investment. He now claims £22,975.24 for a SECOND London home which he has owned since 2006. Why does he not use his first London property to stay in? He could kick out the current tenants and live there at no additional cost to the taxpayer. He already has a second home in London, he’s just using the system to protect his first investment. This is totally wrong.  He could have continued to use hotels and stay with friends, rather than having another London home. Why did this stop after his first year?

Mr Duddridge has, like many other MPs, used a poor system to his benefit and to the detriment of the British taxpayer. He claims:

“I must stress that I would struggle to perform my duties as effectively as I do now, without the allowances provided.”

 

Bullshit. He needs some of the allowances provided, not all. Kitchen items, money to pay his council tax and all the rest of it are non-essential to his work as an MP. I hope that the local newspaper and the electorate will rigorously hold him to account from now on. I know I will.