With friends like these... Tory chairman slams Cornwall Council parking policy

Tory Chairman Grant Shapps was in Cornwall this week to launch his party's local election campaign. Sadly for Mr Shapps, all did not go to plan as he lambasted councils which use town centre car parks as cash cows at the expense of local shops and businesses. Tory led Cornwall Council is, of course, one of the councils which does just that.

On the issue of parking, it has been the Liberal Democrats who have campaigned for more reasonable parking charges for the entire four years of this council. We have highlighted how high parking charges affect local shops and kill town centres. The Conservatives, who had the power to do something about this, sat back and raised prices year after year.

One of the key successes of the Liberal Democrat budget passed in February is that it has found £1.2 million each year for the next two years to underwrite cuts to parking charges. We are determined to encourage shoppers back to our town centres and lower parking charges is one way to do so. None of the Tory factions included parking charge cuts within their budget proposals and independents, MK and Labour all voted against cutting parking charges. Clearly the cuts passed in the budget are at risk of being dropped unless the Liberal Democrats win enough support on May 2nd to see them through.

It seems the Conservative strategy in this election is to try to pretend they don't run Cornwall Council. This despite the fact the Leader of the Council is a Conservative, the Conservative Group Leader served on the cabinet until recently and that the former leader of the council was paraded about at events with the Prime Minister in London.

Tweet

The one where Sarah 'On Message' Newton comes unstuck

This afternoon I was in Plymouth to record the South West segment of the Sunday Politics Show. One of the other guests is Truro and Falmouth Tory MP Sarah Newton.

In the green room before the recording, we were discussing the fears that the new Home Buy support scheme could end up helping to subsidise the purchase of second homes - as I blogged yesterday.

Sarah declared that this was definitely not the case and that ministers had ruled it out. I agreed with her that there had been statements made by ministers that they would seek to exclude second home buyers, but that these had only come after the flaw in their original plans had been spotted.

Sarah declared that the Chancellor had been quite definite on this issue from the start. She could even prove it by showing me in the Budget Red Book (the official Treasury document with all the budget details) where it said that the scheme would only be for primary residences.

The trouble is that no matter how hard she looked, she couldn't find anything in the Red Book to prove her point.

So she declared that the statements were in accompanying guidance that was issued at the same time and was on her iPad. Strangely, she didn't attempt to show me that...

In other news, Sarah declared that the whole pasty tax shambles in last year's budget was spotted immediately by ministers and wasn't corrected straight away simply to set up a campaign so that the government could give ground. Hmm.

There is another 'Newton-ism' to blog about from the recording itself, but I will leave that until after the broadcast on Sunday morning at 11am.

Tweet

Tories in turmoil (non-Eastleigh edition)

Huge congratulations to Mike Thornton, the new Lib Dem MP for Eastleigh. With the Conservatives coming third behind UKIP, there are sure to be some serious recriminations within Mr Cameron's party.

But these are happening in Cornwall Tories too. Here the Conservatives seem to be imploding as a result of the budget vote on Tuesday when some blues backed the Lib Dem alternative plan for a council tax freeze and investment in services.

A month ago, the cabinet's portfolio holder for finance quit because she didn't approve of the budget drawn up by her own department (apparently she had been on holiday when the decisions were taken). Yesterday we saw one Tory cabinet member fired by the Leader because he voted for the freeze and against the official Cabinet line for a 1.97% rise.

We also saw two (so far) Conservative cabinet members quit their party and become independent. I understand that this is due to the tactics of the Conservative group leader. And I hear that there might be at least one more Tory who will leave the party in the next few days.

The Conservatives were already in three factions in County Hall. Now it seems that at least two of those factions are falling apart. And the war between the different factions is becoming both public and personal.

Council Leader Jim Currie on Steve Rushworth, the cabinet member he sacked yesterday saying he had "a beef" and "He is not compatible with the rest of the cabinet, it is as simple as that." 

Meanwhile, group leader Fiona Ferguson (who quit the cabinet last month) said she no longer considers Mr Currie to be a Conservative, claiming he has effectively become an Independent leader.

Elections in Cornwall are in two months and one day.

Tweet

Cash without question - the Tory PPC and his non-job at taxpayers' expense

The new Conservative PPC for North Cornwall has some explaining to do. Scott Mann is currently taking thousands of pounds from taxpayers for a non-job that takes up just a few minutes of his time each year.

Cllr Mann is Chairman of the Regulatory Committee of Cornwall Council and receives £2385.82 per year as a 'special responsibility allowance'. He was elected chairman at a meeting which lasted just 8 minutes on July 5th 2011.

Since then, the committee has met just once more on July 2nd 2012 (when Mann was re-elected). That meeting lasted barely any longer than the first. Yet Cllr Mann continues to receive his extra allowance.

Last week, Cllr Mann voted, with most of his Conservative colleagues, to impose a council tax rise averaging £265 a year on the poorest 26,000 working age families in Cornwall.

So the question is, does the new Conservative candidate think it is right to be taking taxpayer cash when there is virtually no work to do and will he hand back the £3500 or so he has taken in that time?


Tweet

Cornwall accountancy package up to £800k over budget

It's not quite as bad as buying an aircraft carrier, but Cornwall Council's new accounting computer programme is experiencing some costly teething troubles. At present the system is around £800,000 over budget and taking lots of staff time to put right.

The ERP system was bought in order to rationalise the payroll, invoice and accountancy systems and to make it possible for line managers to do a lot more of the financial work rather than having to employ more finance officers.

But the council has asked for additional capabilities compared to the original order and the system does not do everything that it is meant to. This has meant that staff are having to be employed to put things right and this comes at a cost. Today we were told that the additional costs are likely to be around £800,000 and the staff time is, as yet, unquantified.

The council rightly has to bear the cost when it asks for greater capability - but we have to ask why didn't they get it right first time? And worse, officers don't think we will get the money back for the extra costs associated with the bits that simply don't work.

That just seems wrong. If you buy something new for a pre-determined cost then you expect it to work. If it doesn't then you would expect the supplier to put things right for free. Further than that, you would expect that supplier to compensate you for any additional costs incurred whilst things are being put right.

But it appears that this is not the way that Conservative-led Cornwall Council manages taxpayer money.

Tweet

Tory and Independent councillors flip flop on allowances

First they were for it, now they claim to be against it. The flip-flopping position of some Tory and Independent councillors on the allowances rise is quite incredible.

There will be a debate at full council next week to rescind the decision taken back in October to increase the basic councillor allowance from May. In October the vote was taken to raise allowances from £12,128 to £14,600 per year. That was, to say the least, controversial and passed by 42 votes to 29. I was one of the 29 who voted against the rise.

Because the vote next Tuesday involves overturning a decision, the signatures of 20 councillors were needed to get it onto the agenda. What is surprising are the names of some of those who signed up.

Just six of the signatories voted against the rise back in October. These - Cllrs Double, Eddowes, Fitter, Ridgers, Sanger and Tucker - are being consistent to their actions back then. Another signatory, Cllr Lionel Pascoe, wasn't on the council in October.

But, of the rest, an incredible ten signatories were absent from the meeting when the vote was taken.

These were councillors Alec Robertson, Sally Bain, John Dyer, Mike Eathorne-Gibbons, Neil Hatton, Lance Kennedy, Phil Parsons, Liz Penhaligon, Carolyn Rule and Armand Toms. Some had been absent for the whole meeting and at least one was ill at the time. Others had been present for earlier debates but had decided to go home before the vote on allowances was taken. Clearly they felt that they had something better to do than vote on the issue of allowances.

But it doesn't end there. One councillor who is now demanding that the decision be rescinded - Cllr Jenny Stewart - was in the meeting but abstained on the vote.

And four more - Cllrs Des Curnow, John Keeling, Tony Martin and Terry Wilkins - actually voted for the allowance rise that they are now seeking to rescind. Their names are listed clearly as being in favour of higher allowances then, but they claim now that this would be a steep in the wrong direction.

If all the councillors who have signed this motion had been present and voted against the rise in allowances back in October, then this debate would not be necessary. But then, this is just one more example of the shambles that the Conservatives and Independents have got Cornwall into.



Tweet

Tories force through Cornwall Poor Tax

From April this year, if you are poor and of working age in Cornwall, you will be forced to pay at least a quarter of your council tax bill for the first time. That is the decision made today by the full council.

This will impose a poor tax averaging about £265 a year on the 26,000 poorest families of working age. At a time when the Conservative group leader is busy campaigning for a council tax freeze without explaining what services will have to be cut, her attitude seems to be that the poorest should still have to face a massive tax hike.

Today's debate looked at two options. The Conservative proposal was to impose the poor tax. The amendment that I put forward on behalf of the Liberal Democrats looked to retain the current system and to pay for this by cutting the spending on consultants and agency staff.

Cornwall Council currently spends more than £1 million a month on consultants and agency staff. Some of this is absolutely essential - it is spending on social workers and call centre workers and the council could not function without them. But that total (according to the figures given to me by the council) is around £5 million out of the total of £13 million. So the council would still be able to save the money without threatening lifeline or essential services.

There was a lot of bluster from the Conservatives claiming that every penny that they spend on consultants and agency staff is essential. Yet just two years ago they were spending £4 million per year less and their leaders were claiming it could be cut back further still. If we could spend so much less then, why can't we do so now and protect the most vulnerable from this tax hike in the process.

I am clear that this decision today will force thousands of families into debt that they will not be able to cope with. There will be thousands more county court judgements and bailiff visits and many more families struck down with the stress and worry of it all. I'm glad that there will be a £1 million hardship fund and that we will be giving the Citizens Advice Bureaux extra money to help counsel people. But the hardship fund will disappear after a year and I fear that the CAB money is far too little for the extra work they will be faced with.

This was never an easy decision to take. But when the Leader of the Conservative group says that she "knows nothing about these people," I think it tells you far more about her and her party's attitude to the poor than anything else.

UPDATE - BBC and WMN coverage of the decision

Tweet

It was only a matter of time...

Anyone who has been following recent events at Cornwall Council will not have been overly surprised by Fiona Ferguson's resignation from the cabinet today.

Many of us were slightly disappointed by the manner of it, however. I was sitting in the same scrutiny meeting as the Leader, Jim Currie, when Cllr Ferguson sent her email. I, and others with laptops or iPads, therefore knew about the move long before the Leader. He had to wait for an officer to come in with a printout of the email. It's disappointing, even discourteous, not to at least make sure the addressee of a resignation gets it before everyone else.

Whatever your view of the reason given for Cllr Ferguson going (I'll blog on that in a bit), we all knew it was coming. One Tory backbencher described the lie detector issue to me as a 'fig leaf'. She has been at war with the leadership ever since she was appointed to the role back in November. After admitting that she was under instruction from Tory central office as group leader to try to seek a council tax freeze, on Tuesday last week she announced she would be doing so at the budget cabinet meeting. But when that took place the next day she seemed reticent to propose the move. Perhaps she had realised that a freeze was unlikely to be possible without front line service cuts. Perhaps it was because she knew she didn't have the votes behind her. As it turned out, only one other cabinet member backed her stance and the majority (the majority of Conservatives even) voted for a rise.

And so we now have three Conservative groups at County Hall - the Currie Cabal; the Ferguson Faithful and the Robertson Rebels, if you like. What you don't have is a strong cabinet all pulling in the same direction trying to do their best for the people of Cornwall at a very difficult time for the authority.

What we won't be getting is a replacement for Fiona. Cllr Currie has announced that he will be taking on the role himself, rather than trying to find a third finance portfolio holder in just over two months.

Tweet

Fiona Ferguson resigns from Cornwall Cabinet

I've just received this email which was sent by Fiona Ferguson, the Cornwall Cabinet member for Finance, to Council Leader Jim Currie:

Jim,

As you know, it came to my attention that the contract let to Capita (before I took up my portfolio duties) to survey claimants of the single person’s council tax relief will include the use of “Voice Risk Analysis” (VRA) techniques when making phone calls to claimants.

These techniques are sometimes called “lie detector” tests.

It is clearly right that Cornwall Council takes a strong line against people who deliberately mis-claim tax benefits but in this case I am more concerned about the impact on the vast majority of honest claimants.

In passing, although this does not deal with my fundamental ethical objection, I note that the techniques used by Capita were trialled by the Department of Work and Pensions in 24 local authorities on the processing of Housing Benefit between August 2008 and December 2010.

Their report issued in September 2010 said: “From our findings it is not possible to demonstrate that VRA works effectively and consistently in the benefits environment. The evidence is not compelling enough to recommend the use of VRA within DWP.”

I have discussed this matter with the Monitoring Officer.  He has advised me that, as this is an operational matter in relation to a contract that the Council has already entered into, he strongly advises me that I should not require  that this software is not used.  If, contrary to his advice, I maintain my stance that we must not use this software then officers will comply provided you also agree.

You have made it clear to me that you will not agree.  Indeed, you have said that I will be ‘sacked’ if I inform members that this software will be used.

That will not be necessary.  Please accept my resignation with immediate effect. 

May I say that I have no reason whatsoever to believe that you were aware of this aspect of the contract before I drew it to your attention.  I also appreciate that you are in a difficult position in view of the Monitoring Officer’s advice.  But, I do not believe that his advice is correct and I cannot accept it on ethical grounds.  I also do not believe that it will help the Council to pursue fraud (which we must surely do) if the public think we are using this software.  Finally, I fear that it will be extremely damaging to our reputation.

Therefore, I am launching a petition to require any use of this type of technology to be approved by Full Council.

Fiona

Tweet

Fiona Ferguson becomes fourth Tory leader in a month

Congratulations to Fiona Ferguson who was this evening voted in as the new leader of the Conservative group on Cornwall Council.

Fiona becomes the fourth leader of Cornwall Conservatives in just over a month. Alec Robertson resigned... Armand Toms was picked to be the Tory nominee for the council leadership but withdrew... Jim Currie was voted in ac council, but not group leader... and now Fiona.

Rumour has it that if Fiona resigns they are lining up Rafa Benitez next

Tweet

Roger Harding's parking campaign

Fellow blogger Rob Simmons has posted about a leaflet (see left, click on the image for a bigger view) being put out by the Tories in the St Ives constituency. The problem with the leaflet is that it argues against the very policies that they are implementing in power.

One section says:

 "Cllr Harding has long argued that cheaper short-stay car park charges are fairer and help boost the local economy. Roger continues the campaign to see further measures taken to reduce the cost of parking..."

Obviously Roger will have taken every opportunity to press his case for a reduction in parking charges, won't he? So how many meetings of the Parking Policy Panel of Cornwall Council has he turned up to out of 23 since the authority came into being in 2009?

One.

On December 14th 2010.


Tweet

Government by conference soundbite - and why it affects Cornwall - UPDATED

Localism is a good thing. It means handing power down from government to local councils and from local councils to parish and town councils, community groups and even individuals. It's more than the old John Major-era concept of subsidiarity - which was all about decision making. It's about delivering services as well.

And the coalition government has done a lot to make localism happen.

• Local groups can now challenge to run services themselves if they believe they can do it better or cheaper.
• Communities can 'list' assets of community value to stop them being sold from under their noses.
• Town and parish councils can lead the way in deciding what sort of development they want and where it should be - and this plan will have the weight of law on its side.

But there is still room for improvement. The right to bid to run local services will remain a pretty hollow one if councils (like Cornwall) refuse to recognise any community benefit in local service delivery and insist on judging a bid on a purely commercial basis. And the neighbourhood plans idea is great, but needs investment and resources from the council to make it happen.

But whilst these are a good step in the right direction, many Conservative ministers still think that central command and control is the right way forward.

Latest with the 'nanny knows best' outlook is Chancellor George Osborne. Yesterday he announced that he wanted to see councils freeze council tax for a third year and that, for those that did, he would give them a one off grant equivalent to 1% of their budget. Last year, councils who froze tax levels got a 2.5% grant. And, more than that, he would effectively cap councils at a 2% rise in council tax. If an authority wants to raise tax more than that then they will need to hold a very costly referendum and seek voter approval.

That is about as far from localism as it is possible to get. Local councillors who know their local budgets backwards are being usurped from their role by a Chancellor looking to get a cheap clap from his party conference. Even those councillors who want to see council tax bills frozen or cut have been speaking out against this authoritarianism. The (Conservative) head of the Local Government Association said this:

“Reducing the current referendum trigger from 3.5 per cent to 2 per cent represents less flexibility for councils and even less localism with Whitehall decreeing what constitutes excessive. If local referendums are to be truly localist, they should be triggered by local people who can determine whether a council tax increase is excessive or not.

Let's have localism that is (to use Nick Clegg's awful phrase) hard-wired into our society so that it is automatically down to local communities to decide things. It's entirely wrong that these issues should remain at the whim of a minister.

UPDATE - An excellent open letter to Eric Pickles on the issues of planning and the loss of localism is here.

Tweet

Lance's big moment (and he'll be judged by AV)

The news is trickling through that Bodmin councillor Lance Kennedy has made it through onto the shortlist to be the Conservative candidate for police commissioner in Devon and Cornwall. It's quite a triumph for Lance who has been set against by the party machine locally who seemed to be desperate to find anyone but him to be the candidate.

Lance (and the other shortlisted candidates) will now have to face the selectorate in three hustings events next week. But, contradicting their earlier statements on the issue, the Tory Party have decided that the hustings will be open only to Tory Party members and electors. It seems that people who usually back other parties (or no party at all) will be excluded and the appeal of the shortlisted candidates to reach across the political spectrum for votes will therefore not be tested.

The other interesting factor in the Tory selection is that it will be conducted using the Alternative Vote. Remember that a year ago the Conservatives were campaigning against this very system being used for parliamentary elections. So why are they using it for their own elections? Is First Past the Post not good enough for them?



Tweet

Cornwall's Budget (with apologies to the English language)

Today Cornwall Council set its budget for the coming financial year. The central plank of the proposal is a Liberal Democrat one - to accept the government grant which means a freeze in council tax.

The Conservative-led administration has also accepted Lib Dem demands on saving local bus services and protecting public toilets from closure - both of which are very good news.

Astoundingly, the Leader of the Council made the claim that there had been no cuts to either leisure or library services in Cornwall last year or this. I challenged him on this, pointing out the cut to the hours of virtually every library in Cornwall and the dumping of Camelford Leisure Centre and Bude Sea Pool by the council. In response, the Leader attempted to justify his statement saying that these were reductions, rather than cuts - abuse of language which a quick check of a thesaurus would disprove.

The Liberal Democrat group on the council voted in favour of the aspects of the budget that dealt with the council tax freeze. There were twelve members (mainly independents and MK) who voted against the budget and six who abstained. Of particular interest is that there were two cabinet members who failed to back this key plank of the budget - Neil Burden abstained and Julian German voted against.

The Lib Dems also voted in favour of the housing investment plan. We aren't completely convinced that the administration has worked this plan out fully, but we do think they are heading in the right direction and we were happy to support it. Similarly, I also backed the capital investment plan.

Where we disagreed with the administration is over their business plan - their manifesto, in effect - and their medium term financial strategy. We do not agree with the vision that the Conservatives have for Cornwall - there are far too many whiz bang schemes and not enough concentration on jobs and high quality core services. We also do not believe that they are competent enough to run it properly. You only have to look at the failure of the car parking budget for an example.

Tweet

Wendron: Lib Dems jump from fifth to second and congrats to MK

In case you haven't seen it elsewhere, this is the result of the Wendron by-election:

Loveday Jenkin (MK) - 427 - 36.4% (+16.4%)
John Martin (LD) - 262 - 22.3% (+12.3%)
Conservative 227 - 19.4% (+3.4%)
Independent 177 - 15.1% (-16.9%)
Labour 80 - 6.8% (+3.8%)

A great result for the Lib Dems jumping from fifth in 2009 to second this time. This was down to a brilliant candidate in John Martin and a fantastic campaign.

Obviously congratulations are due to Loveday Jenkin who came second last time and gained it this time.

The Lib Dems leapfrogged the Tories (third in 2009). This was the fourth by-election in this council. So far they have lost two seats and been failed to make any impression in two others that they thought they would win.

And where were Labour? Remember all their boasts about being a serious force in Cornwall. Perhaps you could excuse Bude - not exactly their best area. But half of Wendron falls within Camborne, Redruth and Hayle - their supposed heartland.

Thanks to everyone who helped in Wendron. We can be proud of this result.

Tweet

Dear Eric Pickles...

... If you are serious about saving money in local councils, why don't you begin by stopping your councillors resigning after just 13 days meaning yet another by-election at a cost to local taxpayers of about £5,000.

Seven questions for Zac Goldsmith

Following the questions raised by Channel Four News about Zac Goldsmith's election expenses and his subsequent denial of having done anything wrong, I have the following questions which he will presumably be able to answer without a problem:

Campaign jackets.

1. If you are serious in only charging a portion of the cost of the stickers to your campaign expenses, presumably you have all the stickers carefully stored away and they are in a fit state to be re-used. If not, can you explain why the full cost of any which are missing or damaged has not been included in your expense returns?

2. What has happened to the jackets themselves? If they have not been charged to your campaign expenses, what has happened to them? If you gave them to campaign supporters, presumably these cannot have been constituents or that would have been treating. So did you charge the people you gave them to and can you produce receipts?

Undelivered leaflets.

3. You claim that you bought and paid for 62,000 campaign leaflets which were not delivered. How does this waste of paper fit with your green credentials?

4. What have you done with the undelivered leaflets? Can you prove that they were not delivered?

Posters.

5. You apportioned £700 of the cost of your campaign posters to your local council colleagues. How do you justify this apportionment given that your image and name appeared on the posters and not those of your council colleagues?

6. Of the remaining sum, you have included less than one seventh of the cost in your election expenses. Presumably this means that these posters will be able to be used for a further six elections. Can you produce all the posters in a fit state to be used again or justify why you have not included the full cost of damaged or missing posters in your expense returns?

Trikes.

7. On Channel Four News you said that you had not declared the cost of trikes that you used in your campaign. How do you justify this decision? Were these vehicles which already belonged to individual campaign supporters and did you declare the running costs or depreciation of the vehicles? Or were these bought by your campaign or constituency association, in which case how do you justify your decision not to declare any portion of their purchase cost in your expenses returns?

I make no judgment that Mr Goldsmith has broken the law in respect of his election expenses and will happily publish or link to any statements he makes which answer the questions he poses. But, given the desire of the public to move towards cleaner politics, it is surely right that he should be able to justify in detail his accounting practices rather than simply make claims about what other candidates might or might not do.

Zac Goldsmith and the posters that will last 50 years - UPDATED

Hot on the heels of news that Scottish Tory MP David Mundell is being investigated by the Police over his election expenses comes a report by Channel 4 News that questions have been raised over the expenses of new Richmond Park Tory MP Zac Goldsmith.

The report claims that Goldsmith declared expenses for the short campaign (ie the 23 days leading up to polling day) of £10,783 - just £220 below the legal limit. There's nothing wrong with that. In order to maximise your chance of winning, a candidate will always try to spend as close to the limit as possible. But the report questions whether the real cost of the campaign wasn't actually a bit more.

In my experience the most damaging allegation is over Goldsmith's claim that a portion of the cost of his election posters should be attributed to Conservative local election candidates in his area. That would be entirely legitimate if the posters said 'Vote Conservative' or similar as he could argue that some of the benefit of these went to local candidates. Except that it is said that the posters carried his name and photo and therefore would have little benefit in promoting local candidates.

Goldsmith also claimed that much of the cost of the posters could be discounted as they could be used for other elections. This is a common tactic. A poster could - at least in theory - be used for more than one election. But claiming that they could be used for more than 50 years (ten elections) might be tough for him to prove.

Other claims concerned the use of 200 campaign jackets with 'I back Zac' on the back of them. Goldsmith has said that only the cost of the stickers should be attributed to his campaign expenses and has, once again, claimed that the stickers could be used for further elections. Perhaps it would be interesting to ask him to produce the reclaimed stickers and for him to show that they are in a fit condition to be used time and time and time again.

The final claim concerns leaflets which were ordered but not used. On this item, I think that Goldsmith is on firmer ground. If they did not contribute to his election campaign then they should not be counted. Proving that they were never delivered is a tough task. Perhaps Mr Goldsmith could produce the undelivered piles of leaflets to prove his case.

If his main opponent in the election - Lib Dem Susan Kramer - wants to challenge the result on the basis of overspending then she has only a limited time to do so. Mr Goldsmith's agent has stated that he believes they have scrupulously abided by the law.

UPDATE - The original details in this post were based on those listed on Channel Four's website. I have subsequently updated them and more details are on my later blogpost here.

Decision day for Lord Ashcroft

Today is the day that Lord Ashcroft, the Tory donor-in-chief, must decide whether or not to give up his non-dom status.

Three months ago, members of the House of Lords were given today's deadline to get their tax affairs in order or relinquish their seats in the House of Lords. So far, four peers have decided that they value their tax free status more. These include Lord Laidlaw and Lord McAlpine - who announced their plan to leave the Lords a while ago - and Lord Bagri and Baroness Dunn who have revealed their decision to quit in the last few days.

At the time of the general election, Lord Ashcroft said that he would be giving up his non-dom status and paying full UK tax. But his spokesman has apparently been giving mixed messages in recent years and so today will be decision day.

Regrettably, the peers who do decide to keep their non-dom status will still be allowed to keep their titles for life, although they will no longer be able to sit or vote in debates.

Those poor MPs

The Telegraph reports that two junior ministers are having to use their own money in order to have a home in their constituencies.

Both Edward Garnier and Hugo Swire have decided that their main home should be in London. Garnier's is said to be worth £2.4million and Swire's £1million.

So when it comes to having a second home in their constituency, they are looking to rent using the new level of allowances. Both claim that the taxpayer-funded rent allowed is too low to be able to afford anything decent. As a result they claim they are having to pay part of the rent out of their own salaries (respectively £126k a year and £98k a year).

Surely, so long as the new rent levels are enough to be able to afford to rent something as a second home then that is the end of the taxpayer's obligations to these men. If they want to rent 'a large farmhouse' as Mr Swire has done, then it is their choice and they should pay accordingly.