Levitt's last words

Tom Levitt has this week written his last column* for your local newspaper in High Peak. It's basically a long list of what he sees as his acheivements, along with recollections about his time in Parliament.

Strangely missing from this is any mention on the expenses outrage, but perhaps that isn't surprising. However, he saves the most disingenuous part until last:

After thirteen years, I have decided to move on.

Tom doesn't make clear that he was moved on by the outrage in his Constituency Party, but his track record of being economical with the truth (if not with our money) is being upheld. His move to stand down was also no doubt motivated by the knowledge that the IPSA report spelt out that the 'golden parachutes' handed out to MPs upon retirement would no longer be anywhere near as generous as they were previously. Back in November last year, we outlined that Levitt would stand to gain £54,403 (£30K of that tax free) under the current system, along with an aptly-named 'winding up allowance' of over £42K.

So the end of Tom Levitt's career as an MP also means the end of this blog. It will remain in cyberspace as a record of his avarice and greed, but there's always our sister blog Levitt Watch, which will keep an eye on what he's up to.

In the words of Levitt "It has been a privilege. Thank you."

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

The Telegraph picks up on Levitt's Expenses Play for BBC Radio 4

The Telegraph has just posted an extensive article about the Radio Play Tom Levitt has written and submitted to the BBC, an admission he made in his response the the IPSA consultation which we revealed this week.

The Telegraph regard the play as 'a thinly disguised account of his own involvement in one of the biggest political scandals of modern times', and seem to have inside knowledge, and also quote Levitt which suggests self-publicity.

As we commented the other day, it's amazing that Levitt has the bare-faced cheek to portray himself as so dedicated and hard-working when he clearly has a lot of time to devote the writing a play.

The text of the Telegraph article can be read below upon clicking 'read more' at the foot of this post.

Tom Levitt's response to the IPSA consultation

We alluded to To Levitt's response to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) expenses consultation, and here's a link to the PDF file. For ease of reading, we have reproduced the text of the document, and this is accessible via a link ('read more') at the bottom of this post.

Before you read it, you may want to note some rather interesting observations we have made upon reading it:

• The document contains 13 spelling mistakes (highlighted in our reproduction).
• Levitt reveals he has submitted a radio play to the BBC on the expenses issue (he says he has attached a draft, but this is not reproduced in the PDF). Clearly, he has a lot of time on his hands, which contradicts his comments about needing to use first class travel 4 hours a week in order to 'work'.
• Contrary to his recent statements that the new expenses system is fair, he reserves a lot of vitriol for the proposals in this report.

There's a lot to his response, so we may be back to pick up on bits and pieces of it at a later date. In the meantime, read on...

Levitt - the ruling class must travel by first class

In complete contradiction to his more recent attempts at remorse, Tom Levitt is once again doing his damnedest to preserve the completely OTT perks of his job, despite all of he furore over MPs expenses, and despite the fact he will no longer be an MP for much longer.

The Sunday Times reported last week how many MPs were in opposition to the proposals of the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) which had produced a consultation document about the future expenses regime. The Sunday Times homed in on one particular aspect of the responses to the consultation by MPs - that surrounding first class travel on trains, which IPSA proposed to limit to 'exceptional circumstances'. This was presumably because of the remarks of the vile Tory MP for Macclesfield Nicholas Winterton, where he made it clear that he travelled first class to avoid working class people.

Amongst other publications that picked up the story was the Telegraph, quoting Levitt as follows:

"I invariably work on the train, something I can only do in a first class carriage for three reasons: that I have a table, space and privacy to work there; that I have a seat (as the standard class carriages between Manchester and London are often standing room only); and that (as I am over six feet tall) I have the leg room for comfort."

Now we're sure there are some people who want to work on the train (or indeed have to), but given that Levitt travels to and from London once a week, he spends 4 hours on a train a week - that's a week, not a day. So what is it that is so crucial for him to complete in this time? Travelling in Standard ('second') class does not prevent someone from reading, nor from making telephone calls (which are no more private in first class), and if Levitt needs a table, he could surely block-book his seat in advance, and save money too.

Levitt's protestations stretch credibility, and it seems they amount to little more than Winterton's. One part of Levitt's response that has been omitted is the following very revealing comment:

"... MPs who benefit from conversation together in a relaxed atmosphere on the London train will find they have to travel in different carriages" (i.e. under the new proposals)

In other words, Levitt prefers the company of his fellow members of the ruling class to that of the unwashed. Why should he have to stand up like the rest of us, on overcrowded trains? He's better than us, and surely doesn't deserve such indignities.

But now, Levitt is back to contradictory statements. In today's Buxton Advertiser, he's quoted as follows:

"The current system is far better than what went before — which was typified by ambiguous rules, inconsistent application and some blatant exploitation."

In a future post, we'll show you how hollow these words are.

Levitt denies rumours he is to be a paid adviser to Nestlé

Tom Levitt today published a press release on his website* about rumours he is to become a paid adviser to Nestlé after he stands down at the General Election.

This denial follows the publication of the following story in the latest edition of satirical magazine Private Eye last week:

Tom Levitt, Labour MP for High Peak, is standing down at the next election - no doubt to the relief of colleagues who were often bemused by his defence of Nestlé, the food giant frequently attacked for its baby milk marketing practices.

Levitt even went on a Nestlé-funded trip to South Africa, returning full of praise for his hosts and even quoting Nestle's own PR on his blog to refute activists' charges.

Announcing his decision not to stand for re-election, Levitt said: "I would like to spend more time with my wife, our children and grandchildren. I would also like to do something different in the work environment." How fortunate that one of the roles that will help the transition to his "new work environment" will be... as a paid adviser to Nestlé!

Levitt has responded as follows:

"Over the years I have been a guest of Nestlé at Wimbledon, at a cricket test match and on a visit to South Africa in 2008 to look at Corporate Social Responsibility, all properly recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. Nestlé is the owner of Buxton Water, an important local employer and an iconic brand of the High Peak area. It is right for the MP to have close relations with important local companies.

"I have no firm plans yet for what I shall be doing in the work environment after the election - though I have some irons in the fire - but the post of "paid advisor to Nestlé" is news to me.

"I am not aware of any MP colleague who has been "bemused" in the way the story suggests. The "practices" to which the story refers took place 30 to 40 years ago and I now believe that Nestlé is amongst the most ethical of traders in this field."

Which sounds to us like a lovely little bit of PR for Nestlé. For further details and background of this story, please visit our new blog - Levitt Watch!

*when this link no longer works, you can view a screen grab here.

Levitt prays for the 'last word' on expenses

Tom Levitt has today published a press release* (which is usually regurgitated as his weekly column) entitled 'Expenses the final word?'. Unfortunately for him, it still leaves some questions about the exact position. We'll go through some of his words (in italics) with our observations (in bold).

Gone is the do-what-you-like atmosphere which allowed MPs, including myself, to claim for things which the public found unreasonable. Note the use of the the word 'public', Levitt seems to be suggesting it's not actually unreasonable, it's just that those who take the view that it is outnumber him in thinking so. How very like Tony Blair!

Let me be clear about my record: I was guided by the law, the rules of Parliament, professional advice and my conscience at all times. All of which were found wanting - they write the rules, they create the law and they want us to forgive them for taking full advantage of it.

The auditors under Sir Thomas Legg disallowed three claims that I had made:


- the inadvertent claiming of 12 months (instead of 10) Council Tax on my London flat for two years, £412 (revealed and paid back last May). This simply isn't true - Legg's report contains no mention of the Council Tax, that was spotted by this blog last June, Levitt only repaying it when the press picked up our story. This was the only money that had been repaid last Thursday.

- a piece of furniture, allowed in 2005 but deemed to have been extravagant in 2009, £389 (revealed last October). That piece of furniture was a sofa bed which had cost us £1599, and which Legg considered was too extravagant to the tune of £389. The £389 had not been repaid by Levitt up until last Thursday.

- a miscalculation of mortgage interest over five years (confirmed in last week’s Legg report) of net £390.95. Wrong again: the mortgage interest was for 2004, 2005 & 2006 (3 years), and the amount outstanding was £800.95 as of last Thursday (nothing repaid then).

All of these sums have now been paid back; nothing is outstanding. We'll have to take Tom's word for it, some proof would be nice given that he has such a poor record of repaying the money that is owed.

We must move quickly to put these issues behind us. But not until May eh, Tom? Not until you're eligible for your massive golden handshake?

Now it could be that Tom is about to get his wish: this may indeed be the last word about Tom Levitt's expenses, given the lack of info likely to be available in future. But there is the whole question of what it is that Levitt will get up to next. Will he go back to teaching? Will he spread the good word about charities? Will he become an ambassador for Nestlé, a company with which he has been huddling in the past (now there's a story in there somewhere...)? Or perhaps Gordon Brown will reward him for his sycophancy by making him a peer of the realm? Lord Buxton anyone?

If this is the end, then keep watching this blog. Depending upon what follows, something else may follow it. We'll be watching...

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

More confusion - exactly what has Levitt repaid?

Shortly after writing the last post, we turned our attention to another document released today on the parliament website. This is a list of exactly who has repaid what - Levitt appears on page 16 of this PDF.

Looking at the document you'll note that he has repaid £412, as today's Legg report made clear. But in the 'comments' column at the end, we learn what this is for:

Two months inadvertent over claim of Council Tax in two consecutive years.

Now you may remember that the issue of Levitt overclaiming £407.60 for his Council Tax was discovered and first brought to the attention of the world by this website last June.

So the questions that now flow from this are:

• Has Levitt repaid anything towards the sofa bed overpayment identified by Legg?
• If he has, then why hasn't it been accounted for by Legg?
• If he hasn't, what the hell is he playing at?

There really is no point in looking to us for the answers when all of the official information seems so hopelessly confused...

Levitt the debtor still owes £777.95

As everyone will know by now, today saw the publication of Sir Thomas Legg's report into MPs expenses. The report (which can be read here - this is a PDF file) mentions Tom Levitt on page 97, and tells us the following:

Mr Levitt was overpaid by a net total of £800.95 for mortgage interest between April 2004 and March 2006.

He was also paid £1,599 for a sofa bed in October 2004. This exceeded the nearest relevant guideline price of £1,210 by £389.

Total repayment recommended: £1,189.95

Total repayments received since 1 April 2009: £412.00

Balance recommended to be repaid: £777.95

Yes, you read that right - Levitt still has not repaid £777.95.

Now let's pay a little more attention to the implications of this news. Our initial post on this blog in May last year dealt with Levitt's first confession-like column, where he admitted to over-claiming for mortgage payments. At the time, following the intervention of the Telegraph a few days later, this figure was shown to be £6,000 and Levitt said he had paid it all back. But now we find out that 4 to 6 years later, £800.95 is still outstanding. May we also remind readers that the issue of overclaiming for mortgage payments is an ongoing issue for Levitt: buried in the files released last October is correspondence between the House of Commons Fees Office and Levitt where they point out he has over-claimed for his mortgage (and broken a previous agreement) to the tune of £1,428.98, which they then deducted from his future claims to ensure that it was repaid (page 66 of this PDF).

The sofa bed issue meanwhile, is one that we are familiar from October last year. Levitt loudly commented that he had repaid it in full, and he indeed seems to have paid £412, i.e. £23 more than requested. But then he still owes £777.95.

When he announced that he was standing down from Parliament in November, Levitt said with regard to expenses reform that "we need to demonstrate that a line has been drawn". But after all that has occurred, his sincerity is still an issue, hence the outstanding £777.95. Levitt this week gave the kiss of death to his successor as the Labour candidate at the next election, Caitlin Bisknell, by loudly trumpeting her success* and having his photo taken with her, shaking her hand. One starts to wonder who benefits from this - is there anyone left in the High Peak who would shake the hand of an out-and-out liar and fraudster like Levitt?

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

Levitt - already breaking the new rules

Released alongside the expenses details for the year 2008-2009 were details for the first quarter of 2009-2010, under the renamed Personal Additional Accommodation Expenditure allowance (PAAE).

This PDF contains the claim forms for April, May and June 2009, which were submitted on 23rd June 2009. In his weekly column two weeks earlier* (entitled 'Humility', without a trace of irony), Levitt had spoken of MPs "indulgences in an anarchic system of spending rules (sic)". Yet the PDF shows that Levitt had not grasped the now simplified expenses rules at all. The PAAE files contain a letter from the Fees Office reminding Levitt of said rules:

Effective from 20 May Members may now only use PAAE to claim rent, including ground rent, hotel accommodation, overnight subsistence, mortgage interest ... council tax, service charges, utility bills ..., insurance.

Therefore, we can no longer reimburse you for Broadband, garage rental and cleaning charges. Your claims have been reduced accordingly.

Levitt had overclaimed by £335. We'll remind Tom of his words in his column of 1st June** (entitled 'restoring trust in politics') - "Let me repeat that where the law has been broken or rules disobeyed then appropriate punishment should follow". In his column of 18th May 2009*** (entitled 'Statement on MPs' Expenses'), Tom made the following statement:

MPs generally are neither criminals nor fools; but we are all human and therefore fallible. Parliament has lost people’s trust and we need to win it back.

Levitt clearly felt so strongly about winning that trust back that just over a month later, he was submitting illegitimate claims. It must be his fallibility - after all, he's only human.

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

'Hungry' Tom Levitt and the MPs trough

One of the more interesting aspects of the Additional Cost Allowance claim documents released the other week is some of the correspondence between Tom Levitt and the Fees office.

On page 27 of the PDF, Levitt asks for guidance from the Fees Office in relation to his claims for food. Levitt states that for the year 2006-2007, he used a formula he has devised himself of claiming £18 for each day the House of Commons was in session. However, Levitt has convinced himself that this is insufficient, and raised in to £25 per 'sitting day' from April of 2008. Noting that £30 per day has been 'mentioned', he is arguably keen to find out if he can claim even more.

In any case, Levitt claimed £3750 for food in the year 2008-2009. This equates to £72 per week over 52 weeks of the year, or £10 each day (never mind 'sitting days').

But what makes Levitt's figures even more scandalous is the fact that the Houses of Parliament has numerous cafes, bars and restaurants that are already subsidised by the taxpayer. In February 2008, the Daily Mail reported that MPs "can enjoy three-course meals plus coffee for as little as £10.55", with this subsidy amounting to £13,041 each day. Yes, you read that right: MPs can claim expenses to pay for their meals which are already subsidised by us in order to keep the cost down.

Pigs with their snouts in the trough indeed...

Levitt - Ready, Steady, Crook!

We thought we'd walk you through a pictorial selection of Tom Levitt's Additional Cost Allowance claims, specifically those relating to his kitchen. So here we go.

First up is a claim for a cooker hob, specifically a Neff T1323X0 Ceramic Hob in Black. Teresa bought this in June 2008, a bargain at £449, but such a costly item clearly needs a warranty, and Mrs Levitt decided to take out 5 year cover for this item at the cost of £49.

6 days later in July, Teresa ordered a sink, this time a Blanco Classic 6S. This item costs £350, and unlike the one in the picture it had a left hand sink.

No modern kitchen is complete without a microwave, and Teresa's conscience clearly dictated she economise with a Panasonic NNE255, a snip at £59.

The last items on this little spree were a Microplane Fine Grater (£18) and John Lewis' own Soft Grip General Purpose Scissors (£13.50).

In March this year, the Levitt's completely refurbished their kitchen. They spent £189 on a Baumatic BT6-3GL cooker hood.

Strangely, there are no claims for a cooker itself, but the list of items claimed to re-style their kitchen is very long (it can be found on page 86 on the PDF) and they charged the taxpayer £5820.

When you're considering all this, keep in mind that the Fees office considered that all of these items were costs "wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of performing Parliamentary duties", as Tom is always keen to point out.

Tom Levitt's Barclays Premier account

One interesting thing that's worth noting from the PDF containing Tom Levitt's expense claims are the copies of bank statements. Whilst most of the details have been redacted, it's not these that interest us anyway. The statements make it clear that Tom and his wife Teresa have a 'Premier' account with Barclays.

If you pop along to the Barclays website for this account, you have to meet one of the following criteria to obtain this type of account:

1. Have an income of £100,000+, or
2. Have an income of £60,000+ if you are less than 35 years old or hold a business relationship with Barclays, or
3. Have £50,000+ to save and invest

Number 2 is clearly ruled out on grounds of Levitt's age. We think that number 3 is the most likely criteria that Levitt has used to get this account - but who knows, perhaps he has other (undisclosed) interests which mean he earns more than £100,000 each year?

Levitt's claims: 2008-2009 ACA claims

We've now updated our spreadsheet of Tom Levitt's expenses claims to take into account the latest figures released for his 2008-2009 claims. The spreadsheet can be found online at this link.

Under the general headings, the official total claimed by Levitt for this period was £20,522.58. However, we have carefully gone through the PDF that contains the details of his claims and can only seem to reconcile the figure of £20,526.18, which is £3.60 more than the official total.

Therefore, using our figures, these are the amounts claimed by Levitt for the financial year 2008-2009 under the Additional Costs Allowance:

Mortgage - £5,952.22

Food - £3,750.00
Utilities - £847.63
Council Tax - £1,093.64
Telephone & Comms - £250.00
Cleaning - £703.00
Service/maintenance - £1,136.67
Repairs/Insurance/Security - £286.96

Below is a selection of 'other' items claimed during the same period:

Bedding - £82.08

Ceramic Hob, Sink Kit, Microwave - £938.50

TV Licence - £139.50

Kitchen utensils - £178.00

Garage rental - £414.00

Valance - £15.99

Low energy light bulbs - £23.97

Cooker hood - £189.00

Kitchen refurbishment - £5,820.00

Hair clippers - £24.99

The Buxton Advertiser slams Levitt over latest expenses revelations

The Buxton Advertiser were this week the only local newspaper to take up the issue of the latest revelations about Tom Levitt's 2008/2009 expenses claims. You may remember that the revelations last week came too late for the newspapers.

Journalist Michael Broomhead - who previously seemed to be letting Levitt off lightly regarding the Capital Gains Tax issue - has now laid into him, choosing to highlight his smaller claims for hair clippers (£24.99) and a wine glass (£21.50), and contrasting this with the hardship being suffered by many at this time of year.

Now just over a week ago, we did promise a fuller analysis. Suffice to say we're working on it, and will be back shortly...

Levitt- shop 'til you drop

It's that time of year again - yes, more revelations about expenses claims is breaking news today. And Tom Levitt has really done himself proud.

A fuller analysis of the revelations today will have to wait, but in the meantime, here are a few tidbits:

• Levitt claimed £938.50 for a ceramic hob, sink kit and other items from John Lewis in June 2008.

• Levitt claimed £24.99 for 'hair clippers' in July 2008, but his claim was refused by the fees office, as it was felt it was a "personal item and not a cost wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of performing your Parliamentary duties"

• Levitt claimed £5820.00 in March 2009 to refurbish the Kitchen in his London flat. In a letter to the fees office, he explained the existing kitchen consisted of "1970s Kitchen storage units which need replacing. The goods have been obtained at a substantial discount", thank god...

You can view the claims and associated documents in this PDF. There'll be more news and analysis as we get it

Poetry corner - in memoriam, Tom Levitt MP*

So. Farewell

Then Tom Levitt.

So I think
You made
The
Right decision.

You were
Aware
That if Mr Kelly's proposals were implemented
You would not get a good
Payout.

So indeed
Probably time to get out!

E Jarvis Thribb (age 17 ½)

*we're very pleased that an avid reader of this blog sent in a pastiche of the well known Poetry Corner poems that regularly appear in Private Eye.

How much is Levitt's 'Golden Parachute'?

We thought we'd do some research about how much Tom Levitt is likely to cash in when he stands down at the next election.

Aside from a final salary pension scheme and lump sum payment (about which we have no details at present), there's the controversial so-called "golden parachute" payment (aka Resettlement Grant), which is officially paid to "assist with the costs of adjusting to non-parliamentary life".

It is calculated on the basis of the MP's age and length of service. So, by the time Levitt stands down next May, he will be 56, and will have served as an MP for 13 years. Using the ready-reckoner on this page (Table A), we can see that means he will qualify for a lump sum payment of 84% of his annual salary - based on the current MPs salary this will be £54,403. The first £30,000 of this is tax-free.

But that's not all. MPs are also entitled to a "winding up" allowance, which is supposed to pay for office costs and staff redundancy. Of course, this means that Tom will be able to make payments to the family members he has employed. This allowance can be up to £42,068. It is an aptly named allowance, but it is not a wind-up.

Don't believe Levitt's crocodile tears about this whole episode. The weakness of the local Labour Party in not moving to deselect him as an MP sooner means that he is laughing all the way to the bank. For the local newspapers that have chosen to regurgitate Levitt's press release for their 'exclusive story', this is the bit they are missing, deliberately in our view. The gravy train continues to roll on to the final destination.

Breaking news: Levitt to stand down at the next election

The Glossop Advertiser and Buxton Advertiser are reporting the news that Tom Levitt has issued a statement informing the world that he plans to stand down as an MP at the next General Election. The statement from his website* is below:

“I have informed the Labour Party that I shall not be a candidate at the next general election. After the current Parliament I would like to spend more time with my wife, our children and grandchildren. I would also like to do something different in the work environment. Between now and the election I will work as hard as ever, both to support my constituents and help secure a fourth term for Labour in government.

“The last six months have been torrid. Rightly, MPs have suffered collective as well as individual criticism for the scandalous mess of parliamentary allowances. Steps are now being taken to stop MPs deciding on our own expenses, pay and conditions ever again. This is the right thing to do. We need to demonstrate that a line has been drawn. New levels of transparency, compliance and enforcement can restore confidence in Parliament and the democratic system.

“I am proud to serve the people of High Peak in Parliament and I have done my best to be diligent on behalf of constituents. I have also been committed to legislation which, I believe, has improved life for ordinary people in High Peak and elsewhere. There is still much which needs to be done and I will continue to work for the people of High Peak until this Parliament is dissolved.

“I thank so many people in communities across High Peak for their support, indulgence and friendship over 20 years. This group extends beyond my natural political allies. My proudest memories will be the acquisition of the Devonshire Royal site for the University of Derby and the central role of High Peak in the pursuit of the historic right to roam.”

No doubt that because local Labour Party members were so miffed at being unable to deselect Levitt at the last meeting 2 weeks ago, that more and more pressure was piled upon him to step down. Without wanting to sound too boastful, the work of this blog has contributed to that, whereas the role of the local press in High Peak has been to give Levitt an easy time.

What is less than surprising is that Levitt has chosen to stay on in his well-paid and well-upholstered job for another few months rather than resign now, forcing a by-election. One can imagine that the local Labour Party want time to select and campaign for a new candidate, which is not surprising. But it also means that Levitt gets a very generous 'golden handshake', once more at our expense. We may be back with details of what that is likely to be in due course.

In the meantime, we're running a new poll - should Levitt stay until the election, or just go now?


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

Gunpowder, treason and plot

We feel it's highly appropriate to mark the end of a further burst of activity for this blog with a hat-tip to its inspiration: V for Vendetta. Whilst the graphic novel is far superior in political terms to the recent film adaptation, the finale is a timely reminder to all politicians how hated and despised they are, and how fragile is the membrane of consent that exists which allows them to do what they do to the rest of us.

With Tom Levitt seemingly safe until the next election, and with much of the Kelly Report's recommendations no doubt destined for fudge, we may well pop back with more news at some point over the next few months. Until then, enjoy the fireworks!

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.