Kelly's Report is no surprise - and Levitt survives (for now)

Today was the official launch of the report by Sir Christopher Kelly into MPs' expenses. After the leaks last week, there are few surprises from what we already knew.

What has been clarified is that the changes will be phased in over the next five years. So they will only affect Tom (& Teresa) Levitt if Tom manages to retain his seat at the next election - something which we imagine not even he will be banking on (if you pardon the pun).

In addition, there is some clarity regarding capital gains tax. In future, any gains have to be refunded to the exchequer - so Levitt at last learns about that which he had sought clarification back in May in Parliament. Whatever profit Levitt has made through his 'legal tax dodge', he gets to keep.

Back in his constituency, we understand Levitt faced more anger and discontent at last Friday's Constituency Labour Party meeting. Despite the rising discontent, we understand that Labour Party rules do not allow the local Party to deselect Levitt as the candidate in the next election due to the proximity of the General Election.

Whether or not anyone in the local Party will campaign for him next year is another matter.

Sir Christopher Kelly takes the wheels off Levitt's gravy train

Details of the much awaited report into MPs expenses by Sir Christopher Kelly have started to emerge before it is published next week. And the revelations should give Tom Levitt cause for concern (that is if he seriously thinks he stands a chance of being re-elected). The recommendations so far revealed would affect Levitt as follows:

Second homes can only be rented in future, and not have the mortgage interest costs covered: as we know, Levitt has always claimed for his second home in Lambeth. Under the new proposals, if he remained an MP he'd have to sell that home within 4 years.

A ban on MPs employing family members: Levitt employs his wife, Teresa, as his 'Parliamentary Assistant' and also his stepdaughter, Victoria Fletcher, as a part-time junior secretary. If Mrs Levitt is as good at her job as Tom insists*, we wish her luck in her search for employment with another MP when Tom is dumped by voters in the High Peak next year.

One thing that won't change, according to the Telegraph, is the limited scope of the ongoing Legg inquiry in failing to examine the capital gains tax dodge that Levitt has taken advantage of. This is supposedly the doing of the new Speaker, John Bercow, who took advantage of the tax-dodge himself. Whether the Kelly report closes that loophole is another matter that should concern Levitt, as we pointed out last week.

In the meantime, there is a meeting of the Constituency Labour Party (CLP) this Friday (30th October), and we've no doubt that the capital gains tax issue will be on the agenda. Councillor Anthony McKeown, the secretary of the CLP and previously a Levitt loyalist, has already openly criticised Levitt over his behaviour regarding the Legg letter, which is presumably a bad omen for Levitt if not a move towards a Putsch. Will the CLP have the bottle to consider deselecting Levitt, as we have called for them to consider before, or do they wish to share his fate come the election next year? We'll see.

*when this link no longer works, try this screen grab

Levitt confesses to Capital Gains Tax-dodge

Tom Levitt has now publicly confessed to his 'legal' avoidance of capital gains tax:

When asked about the claims ... he confirmed that no tax was paid on the sale

Two local newspapers have decided to take up the exclusive story about Tom Levitt's tax affairs that was broken on this website last Sunday and continued on Monday. There are significant - and contradictory - differences between each story.

So let's start with the contradictions. In the Buxton Advertiser, Levitt is apparently quoted as saying that our allegation that he was able to avoid capital gains tax "is not true" whilst the article in the Glossop Advertiser reveals the quote to actually be a press release which lazy journalists in the Buxton paper - seemingly with a political axe to grind - have decided to 'cut and paste' to suit their story. Here's the same phrase appearing in the (much better) Advertiser story (emphasis added):

The innuendo and implication in the poisonous stories currently circulating is that I was involved in something underhand. This is not true and I resent this...

See how the meaning has been changed?

The Buxton Advertiser is also badly off-target with the main thrust of our blog articles. It mentions that Legg had given Levitt a clean bill of health regarding 'flipping' - but we never accused Levitt of that in the first place. We're not sure the journalist knows what he's talking about.

Ultimately, Levitt is in denial about the main issue before not only him, but his party. That is that he chose to conceal the "legal" capital gains tax-dodge despite concerns raised by those in his party when the expenses scandal broke. This issue is tackled by neither newspaper, and the main focus is on the 'Legg refund'..

What is worse for High Peak Labour Party is that, so far, they have failed to bring this issue to the attention of the public in an open way. Although Councillor Anthony McKeown has criticised Levitt's openness regarding the Legg letter, we know that he knew about the capital gains tax-dodge, but did not speak out about it. And clearly, the atmosphere in the local Labour Party is poor, or we would not have people contacting us with the information. This 'invisible' show of public unity with Levitt by local Councillors may be 'party discipline', but it also means that are busy lashing themselves to the mast of Levitt's sinking ship.

No doubt there'll be more to say about these issues in due course.

Levitt's public meeting & poll results

Labour Councillor Anthony McKeown is reporting on his blog that Tom Levitt last week held a meeting in Hayfield for constituents that had contacted him about his expenses. All told, 20 people attended, which perhaps suggests that Levitt has been rather selective in his invitations. Councillor McKeown goes some way to confirming suspicions we have when he says that this included Labour Party members. 

Since Councillor McKeown's account is the only one that we have, we can only take his word for it that those present were 'supportive of his actions', whatever that means. But it's strange that these are seemingly invite-only meetings - this meeting has not been highlighted in the press, nor on Levitt's website, or anywhere else. 

Councillor McKeown also continues to tell us that Tom met his Constituency Party last Friday, and we detect a little dig at our previous blog calling for the CLP to deselect Levitt:

One thing however that the discussion didn't look for was for Tom to stand down or for the constituency party to start the process to deselect him

But our poll (see top right of the side column) shows that 86% of respondents want the CLP to deselect Levitt. Whilst we don't pretend that this indicates any kind of earth-shattering rejection of Levitt, it's clear that holding invite-only meetings is no way to show you are accountable to the electorate.

And whilst the CLP may make the decision about who the official Labour candidate is in elections for the Member of Parliament, they will have plenty of time to reflect on their choices when Levitt loses his seat at the next election. It will be too late then to choose someone who has not used taxpayer's money to spend on such frivolous items as hairdryers and electric toothbrushes. 

One only has to look at the comments that Levitt's website is attracting to see that people in the High Peak are very angry indeed about the issue. Now that the CLP have lashed themselves to the mast of the sinking ship of Tom Levitt's career, they'll have no room at all to criticise those who vote for anyone but this crook next time around. 

Oh to be a fly on the wall

On his website, the High Peak Borough Councillor Anthony McKeown has today hinted at what will be discussed at the next Constituency Labour Party (CLP) meeting:

Friday sees this month's constituency Labour Party Meeting which as well as considering issue's (sic) around the forthcoming local elections, will no doubt feature some discussion on MP's expenses

Now whilst we do have our sources in the local Labour Party feeding us info, needless to say, we'd love to be a fly on the wall at this meeting. 

What position the CLP take on Levitt's greed would seem to us to be crucial to their credibility in the area. The right thing to do is to do all that they can to disassociate themselves from Levitt and his actions, all the more so because his puny majority of 735 mean that the future didn't look good for any Labour candidate prior to the expenses scandal breaking.

That the local Labour Party contains people of integrity and values is a fact we will not contest. Although it has to be said that they have had enough reasons to be thoroughly disillusioned with their right-wing MP for the past 12 years, this expenses issue is surely the straw that will break the proverbial camel's back?

If the CLP have any backbone and honour, they will make their feelings known and do what they can to dump Levitt before he drags them down with him.