The Nelson Leader – Colne Times – Barnoldswick and Earby Times publications have recently published letters from Andrew Stephenson Conservative PPC for Pendle; making pledges to the electorate concerning future expenses should he win the parliamentary seat.

Other contributors have questioned the appropriateness of the Conservative Party being funded by tax exiles and have asked Mr Stephenson to apply the future values that he purports by answering the current questions that they have posed to him.

Mr Stephenson has chosen not to reply. We believe that he is “lying low” in the hope that the questions raised about his current ability to “act with honesty, integrity, openness and candour at all times” will evaporate.

Is this the case Mr Stephenson?

Mr Stanley Challenger Graham (one of the correspondents) summarises by writing “Like any other intelligent voter, I shall weigh the evidence and act accordingly.” We believe he has got it right!

Below all the relevant letters that appeared in the Nelson Leader – Colne Times – Barnoldswick and Earby Times publications.

Published date of Newspaper: 12 June 2009

Expenses explained
AS someone who is seeking to be elected as the Member of Parliament for Pendle at the next election, countless people have asked me for my views on MPs' expenses.

Firstly, I am outraged at the way some of our MPs have behaved. There is no excuse and hiding behind the rules will frankly not wash. I would also like to make this pledge to voters. If elected …

I will be completely open about all of my expenses and allowances, publishing full details every month.

I will only claim expenses for costs I have incurred in doing my job as an MP (e.g. travel costs and office allowances, not things like furniture, i-pods or flat screen TVs).

I will not employ members of my family.

I will not use taxpayers' money to pay for political leaflets.

I will act with honesty, integrity, openness and candour at all times.

I will serve all my constituents, regardless of their politics.

I will always put the interests of Pendle first.

ANDREW STEPHENSON Prospective MP for Pendle

Published date of Newspaper: 19 June 2009

Be frank, please
I READ with interest Andrew Stephenson's letter, "Expenses explained". On reading it carefully, I realised he was confining himself to the vexed question of Parliamentary expenses which, with any luck, will be completely reformed before the next General Election.

I was taken by two sentences: "… hiding behind the rules will frankly not wash." and "I will act with honesty, integrity, openness and candour at all times". These are clear and unequivocal statements and I welcome them.
However, if there is one thing voters have learned in recent years it is that a single promise fulfilled is worth a sackful of worthy protestations during a political campaign. So, Mr Stephenson, could we please take you at your word and ask you to comment on the following propositions: Is it true that, on average since 2007, an average of about £50,000 per annum has been invested in the campaign for the Parliamentary seat in Pendle?

Is Lord Greaves's estimate that by the time the election date arrives the best part of £250,000 will have been spent on the campaign accurate? Is this money coming from a source which cannot with any certainty be described as from a UK domiciled taxpayer?

Is it not a fact that the Electoral Commission accounts are not current and the last figure we have is for 2007 when £56,000 was declared and you yourself revealed the party was spending "£50,000 to £60,000" a year in the borough and Lord Ashcroft was helping to pay for party work in Pendle? I take it from your letter last week that you will not hide behind the rules and will act with "honesty, integrity, openness and candour" in any reply you feel you can give.

The practice of using wealth to buy a Parliamentary seat, thus creating what was known as a Pocket Borough, was abolished by the two great electoral reform acts of 1832 and 1867, which produced the system we still use today. The reason why the practice was made illegal was because it was recognised that if a Member of Parliament owed his position to one source of patronage, his independence was suspect. We see this practice persists today in many countries where the amount of campaigning funds and influence decides the course of elections with subsequent repercussions.

I fear that this is what we have seen in Pendle over the last three years and I have no reason to suppose it will abate before the General Election. The only defence we have as voters is that candidates will be open and honest, they will not hide behind any rules and will treat us as intelligent people who only seek the truth and what is best for our Parliamentary Constituency.

So, Mr Stephenson, you used the word "frankly". Perhaps it is time to put this concept into practice.

STANLEY CHALLENGER GRAHAM East Hill Street, Barnoldswick

Published date of Newspaper: 26 June 2009

Allowance morally wrong
IN response to Stanley Graham's letter last week about how political parties pay for their campaigns.

Pendle Conservatives are the only local party whose accounts are published online, showing exactly where every penny we spend comes from and what it is spent on.

Pendle Conservatives, nor I, have never received any money directly from Lord Ashcroft. We do receive a grant from the central Conservative Party to help pay for our local campaigns. This is shown clearly in our accounts and is common practice among political parties to focus their resources on the seats they hope to win in a General Election.

Pendle Conservatives, nor I, do not receive any money from the taxpayer. I still have to work full time to earn a living and I spend a lot of time organising fund-raising events like supper clubs, dinners and raffles to pay for my campaigns.

In contrast, since 2004/5 our Labour MP has received £90,299 to pay for his office, leaflets and adverts in this newspaper and £306,906 to cover staff costs.

This is in addition to the £81,894 we all paid for his mortgage and monthly food bills and £46,630 we paid for his travel over the same period. This is all on top of his salary and pension.

We all know elections are already skewed in favour of incumbents in this country. Not as badly as, say, in the United States, but nevertheless challenging candidates of all parties see taxpayer-funded letters to constituents from MPs and other forms of taxpayer-funded promotions which appear almost identical to publications direct from the political parties.

To make matters worse, in 2007 Labour MPs voted themselves an additional £10,000 per annum communications allowance. This has allowed our Labour MP to pay for thousands of glossy leaflets with taxpayers' cash. In my opinion, the communications allowance is morally wrong as taxpayers are effectively providing funding to incumbents, which is undemocratic and why the Conservatives have said we would scrap it.

ANDREW STEPHENSON Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Pendle

Published date of Newspaper: 03 July 2009

You're still trying to hide!
WITH regard to Mr Andrew Stephenson's letter of June 26th, he still tries to hide behind carefully crafted language.

He says: "Pendle Conservatives, nor I, have never received any money directly from Lord Ashcroft."

Note the word "directly". Mr Stephenson is covering himself here. In 2008, their accounts showed they received £82,752 and £35,445 (42.8%) came from outside sources. Conservative central HQ gave £16,600 and "agent support" came in at £18,845.

I am confident a lot of this money, as in other target constituencies, came from Lord Ashcroft. What we can say for certain is that if Lord Ashcroft was not pouring millions into Conservative coffers, Pendle Conservatives would have had a lot less to spend. How ungrateful of Mr Stephenson to try to distance himself from such a benefactor!

There is currently a major investigation into Lord Ashcroft being conducted by the Electoral Commission. If it turns out Ashcroft is not a full tax paying UK citizen, his multi-million donations to the Conservative Party will be deemed illegal. Would Mr Stephenson then claim the money only came "indirectly" from Ashcroft and try to avoid having to pay it back?

Mr Stephenson also states Pendle Conservatives are the only local party whose accounts are published online. He conveniently omits to tell readers they are forced by the law to do so as they receive more than £25,000 a year.

On June 12th, in your newspaper, Mr Stephenson stated "if elected, I will act with honesty, integrity, openness and candour at all times". There is nothing stopping him from doing so before the election.

MIKE WARNER Meadow Way, Barnoldswick

Published date of Newspaper: 03 July 2009

Cash from tax exiles
IT is a documented fact that the Conservative Party takes millions from tax exiles. Despite the protestations of Andrew Stephenson (Letters, June 26th) some of this money inevitably finds its way into marginal seats such as Pendle.

The self-confessed tax exile and former vice-chairman of the Conservatives, Lord Laidlaw, gave £3m. to the party. He lives in Monaco, out of reach of Revenue and Customs.

It is quite wrong for tax dodgers like Laidlaw to seek to influence the outcome of a General Election by bankrolling their political party from afar.

My amendments to the Political Parties and Elections Bill, currently before Parliament, are designed to close that loophole. They have been passed by the Lords and will return to the Commons on July 13th.

Your readers can follow my campaign by visiting www.gordonprenticemp.com/
and by clicking on the blue rosette.

One other matter. Andrew Stephenson says the Parliamentary Communications Allowance is "immoral" and pledges David Cameron will scrap it.

Fair enough. But the latest published figures for 2007/8 show 176 Conservative MPs are claiming it. The total for the Shadow Cabinet alone comes to £186,836.

Jeremy Hunt claimed £10,668; Gove £15,705; Paterson £13,287; May £10,123; Letwin £11,970; Mitchell £11,022; Grayling £9,439; Lansley £9,944; McLoughlin £10,262; Osborne £9,965; Pickles £9,944; Fox £9,283; Mundell £11,970; Maude £7,859; Spelman £7,057; Willetts £5,114 and Duncan £4,023.

In the same year, I claimed £2,349.

Gordon Prentice MP House of Commons London

Published date of Newspaper: 03 July 2009

Response not frank!
I THINK Andrew Stephenson's letter last week demonstrates one thing very clearly – never expect frank responses to simple questions.

There was only one sentence in his letter that had any bearing on my original inquiry. It was "Pendle Conservatives, nor I, have never received any money directly from Lord Ashcroft".

Clever stuff. I believe this is entirely truthful. However, note the qualifier "direct". Inserting this one word means this is not a denial that funds originating from Lord Ashcroft haven't been channelled into the constituency.

As for the attack on Gordon Prentice's finances, Mr Stephenson knows full well these are public knowledge and have been thoroughly examined by the authorities.

The only way we can ever draw a comparison will be if Mr Stephenson is elected and we can see what he costs us so this is simply a smoke screen.

As a matter of fact I agree with him about the grey area of overlap between Government pronouncements and electioneering.

On the matter of "thousands of glossy leaflets", all I can say is that I have had much more Conservative literature through my letterbox than from any other party. I tried my best, Mr Stephenson, and your firewall is intact. I don't see any point in pursuing this matter any further.

However, I have to tell you I am not impressed by your version of "frankness". On the evidence I have seen, I would rather believe Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Greaves than you and they believe that by the next election, something like £250,000 originating from Lord Ashcroft will have been spent in an attempt to influence the result of the next Parliamentary election in Pendle.

Like any other intelligent voter, I shall weigh the evidence and act accordingly.

STANLEY CHALLENGER GRAHAM East Hill Street, Barnoldswick

MP's food expenses amount to £22 a day!
I am disappointed our own MP, Gordon Prentice, seems to have claimed expenses which has outstanding me and will outstand any Pendle resident who takes time to take a look.

My sums seem to tell me it costs on average between April, 2007, and March, 2008, £378 per month just for food. What – around £90 a week just for food? That's £22 a day - what exactly does he eat?

Or is this claim for his whole family and friends? In these times where people are losing their jobs and struggling to find money for simple basics, do we have an MP living in the same area overclaiming.

From where? Our pockets?

I look forward to Gordon's excuses.

Saraj Ulldin Chapelhouse Road, Nelson

No wonder he's slim
I SAW Saraj Ulldin's letter castigating our MP for spending £22 a day on food and my first thought was that, bearing in mind London prices and the fact this probably included some entertaining as part of his duties, this was quite reasonable.

Then I thought it would be as well to check the calculation. I'm afraid there is an error. £378 per month is £4,536 per annum.

Divided by 365, this comes to the princely sum of £12.43 a day.

As I suspect Gordon does not have a lot of time for shopping and cooking and must have to buy most of his food in restaurants,
I think this is pretty reasonable. No wonder he is so slim!

But that they are paid to the Conservative Party and used to fund campaigns in what they think are winnable seats has been reported without challenge in the media for some time.

Mr Stephenson was asked whether current estimates of these funds spent in this constituency were correct. He ignores this question and passes off their use here as just a levelling of the playing field between the incumbents, the party in government and his party using its resources to win Pendle at the General Election.

No doubt the local Tories' accounts are as transparent as he claims, but transparency is hardly enough. What must matter are the effects of such privileged expenditure on the electoral process.

He refers rather surprisingly to the United States's system. That, however, is less unfair in privileging incumbent parties than it is in its dependence on massive expenditure by the parties relying on money from private donors.

Mr Stephenson makes full use of recent concern over MPs' expenses and your headline points this up, incidentally drawing attention from Mr Stephenson's evasion of the question put last week by Mr Graham.

The same question was asked some weeks ago by another correspondent but was not answered.

The communications allowance that upsets Mr Stephenson has a purpose that should be recognised regardless of questions that may be raised as to its scale or its relative necessity at any particular time.

MPs, who are not at all wealthy men, need money for communicating with their electors. We need to be kept informed and Gordon Prentice's recent efforts have already drawn praise.

There must be, at the very least, a considerable overlap between the content of such communications and those of the political party in power, if it is also that of the local MP. It would be odd if there were not.

Should Mr Stephenson be elected next time, it will be an interesting surprise if his, however they are paid for, are distinguished by critical comments on the doings of a Conservative government.

One can't imagine many MPs making impartial or even critical assessments of the performances of their own parties.

Come to think of it, some of Gordon's have been, at least by implication, exactly that. It is one of the reasons why I, for one, would like to see him re-elected.

Mr Stephenson quotes his expense claims without direct comment, but by doing so, implying his readers may be expected to lump him in with the conspicuously greedy of both parties.

The more serious issue raised is one temporarily obscured by the indignation these have roused. The old adage about monkeys and peanuts is still relevant.

Beyond all the fuss over MPs' expenses and bankers' bonuses is the question of the huge sums now awarded themselves by the very rich who control the private sector.

By contrast, our MPs are underpaid. If they were more generously paid, we might expect they would be more communicative than they have been until recently, but there might still be a case for a precisely targeted communications allowance.

Perhaps Mr Stephenson would prefer political parties to rely entirely on direct contributions from the public to fund their activities, as in the United States. He might say electors should be entitled to contribute to the parties they support.

That's fine, but it ignores the great discrepancy between the wealth of some individuals - like Lord Ashcroft - and that of the rest of us.

Who are more likely to see the politicians favourable to their interests elected? Dare we say the interests of the super-rich are the interests of the rest of us?

Pendle Conservative Association online accounts can be viewed at www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-finance/database-of-registers/statement-of-accounts Simply enter “Pendle” in the search panel.