August 25th, 2010

Keeping It* In the Family

One of the rules MPs managed to block when it was proposed by Sir Christopher Kelly’s Committee on Standards in Public Life was the ban on employing family as staff members. Nepotism being the oldest and most basic form of petty corruption.

Staff Members with same surname as employer MPs:

Lionel BECKETT Margaret Beckett
Margaret BELL Sir Stuart Bell
Stephen BENN Hilary Benn
Katherine BRAZIER Julian Brazier
Samuel BRUCE Fiona Bruce
Eve BURT Alistair Burt
Richard BURT Lorely Burt
Elspeth CAMPBELL Sir Menzies Campbell
Thomas COX Geoffrey Cox
Philippa DORRIES Nadine Dorries
Katy DUDDRIDGE James Duddridge
Suzy GALE Roger Gale
Anthony GODSIFF Roger Godsiff
Susan GRAYLING Chris Grayling
David HASELHURST Sir Alan Haselhurst
Christine HEALD Oliver Heald
Alan HODGSON Sharon Hodgson
Jill LIDDELL-GRAINGER Ian Liddell-Grainger
Peter LIDDELL-GRAINGER Ian Liddell-Grainger
Sophie LIDDELL-GRAINGER Ian Liddell-Grainger
Julia LUFF Peter Luff
Jonathan MITCHELL Austin Mitchell
Carol POULTER Daniel Poulter
Rachael ROBATHAN Andrew Robathan
Alison SANDERS Adrian Sanders
Sasha SWIRE Hugo Swire
Sally TAMI Mark Tami
Sir George

MPs will protest that they pay their spouse / son / daughter / sibling a pittance and they work extra long hours and suchlike. The truth is they deny someone more competent the chance of a job won in open competition. Many MPs really use the staff allowance as a subsidy to family members. Who can forget Derek Conway’s lavish family staffing arrangements, with payments to offspring at university? Peter Hain’s employment of his octogenarian mother despite having a staff of civil servants, special advisers, private secretaries, secretaries and case workers.  Bob Spink famously employed his former wife, his lover and her daughter.

Many MPs now employ their wives / partners in their maiden names to disguise the dodge. For example Elaina Cohen is Khalid Mahmood’s partner – he dumped his wife for her – but contrary to the rules of the House he doesn’t declare the relationship. No doubt some of the above will have innocent explanations for why – against best private sector practise – they issue staff passes to family members. They shouldn’t do it, it is nepotism.

*The ‘it’ being our taxes. Research thanks to co-conspirator, James Spencer.


  1. 1
    purrdey says:

    While I enjoy the blog, the suggestion that MPs should NOT employ family members is entirely naive. If I were a MP my first choice as PA would be my wife, with whom I have worked in our own business since 1990. Given the propensity of various individuals and organisations to dig up any dirt they can (present company excepted of course!) then I would trust my wife to keep our records out of the wrong hands more than anyone I might employ via ‘open competition’. That and weld shut the lid of our dustbin!

    • 6
      fruitcake says:

      It has to be said, Sasha Swire is the person that keeps Hugo organised, right down to which credit card to use….maybe she should be the MP

      • 16
        Ewanmethick as thieves says:

        Oooooo !!!

        Can I leave a comment wivvout loadsa abuse , honey ??

        I ain’t Paul , the psychic octopus , but I reckon online comment has had it’s day .

        People is content to reads the dross wot plops thru their letter-boxes day after endless day .

        Most of these sites (DT , DM , Order-order) is populated by people wot have an axe to grind .

        Hits is evrythin , ain’t it ???

        • 149
          fruitcake says:

          My axe is plenty sharp, you won’t feel a thing, just put your head on that block and I’ll put you out of your obvious torment.

          • Ampers says:


            Look at:

            Richard BURT Lorely Burt

            If you threaten Lonely with the axe there’ll be a God-awful smell…

            This is only for those old enough to remember Callan…


    • 8
      Mr Ned says:

      I do not think that they should ban employing family members entirely due the fact that the family member may be the best person for the job. But they should only get the job IF they genuinely are the best candidate for the job and earn that position through a fair and open selection process.

      Any MP should be able to prove that the person(s) they employ are the person(s) best suited and most qualified for the job.

      • 111
        Batty Hattie Harmanescu says:

        Nice idea, but can you imagine an MP telling his wife she did not get the job because she failed the interview, the job having been given to someone perhaps younger, prettier and more talented? I don’t think so.

        I think MP should be able to employ their family but pick up the wage bill themselves out of their more than ample salary.

        • 182
          Blair's war says:

          This is corruption as you point out Guido,because it helps the family income and can also justify travel expenses when together. This goes against the employment laws they impose on the rest of us, equal ops etc.

          I thought they were trying to increase minorities in parliament- like Harman, I suppose this only applies when not involving their family.

          Clegg and Cameron were going to sort this out and clean up politics- not much progress to date is there? Clegg mentioned house flipping during TV debate and nothing since he came to power. How did Blair achieve his multi million pound property port folio?? Darling and Byrne received an exit payment from the Treasury of just under £20k for making the country bankrupt. Why??

          I would love someone to actually sort this corrupt bunch of tax evading thieves out. Much to do about benefit cheats, little progress on politicians who cheat in all forms of their working lives.

          Come on Telegraph, start working it into them again, I’m sure you will have public support.

      • 115
        Sir Everard Digby says:

        But how will the selection process ever be fair? Surely the interview panel will include the employer who must have some bias towards their relative/partner?

      • 131
        Victor Meldrew says:

        What are the chances of your family member just happening to be the best person for the job? Given the size of the potential applicant pool, it will be tens of thousands to one.

        I don’t believe it.

    • 11

      In a privately owned family business that is fine. Public corporations with shareholders do not allow it. Why should taxpayers in a democracy trust MPs? The majority of them in the last parliament were ordered to repay expenses.

      They have been shown to be untrustworthy.

      • 18
        50 Calibre says:

        Quite right.

        Where public money is involved, white needs to be very, very white.

      • 19
        Mad Nads says:

        And HOW!

      • 40
        SlashnBurn says:

        I’m not entirely sure I agree with Guido’s position. While I admire his effort in trying to clean up politics (and nepotism is certainly a problem that needs addressing), I do not believe that the situation is as clear-cut as he makes it. My reasons for this are as follows:

        1- MP’s personal staff are NOT civil servants, not any more than MP’s themselves are. They are political operators whose allegiance to one political party is self-evident, and whose allegiance to the MP that employs them is even more so. They are not there to put the MP right when he goes wacko: that is the job of the voters, by removing his mandate. They are there to facilitate the MP’s work by providing administrative help and research. But their work output is the MP’s own work output, as far as we are concerned, so it is essential that the MP can own up to any piece of work produced by his staff. This is only realistically likely if there is a certain level of trust between the MP and his staff. Qualification for the job does not necessarily make an aide trustworthy (or, to put it bluntly: the most qualified person for the job might be Peter Mandelson…). It all boils down to the ever-present fine line between reasonable expectations and taking the piss, something society these days seems to struggle to fathom.

        2- Such an emphasis on qualification over personal trust, while not entirely misplaced, belies the naive belief that there is such a thing as a “right” policy that, if researched long enough, would find everyone’s agreement. This is an extremely dangerous notion and not one grounded in reality. First of all, MP’s are not supposed to make “right” policy, but the policy that finds the favour of most voters (they are, after all, “representatives”), secondly there is no such thing as the “right” policy as policies only prove themselves right or wrong once they are enacted and all unintended consequences have played out (and there always are some), and thirdly such policies ought to be shaped by the personal opinions of the MP’s themselves, or there would be no point bothering selecting them, voting them and wasting any time with all that democracy’s malarkey. And this leads back directly to point 1: who do MP’s trust?

        It stands to reason that their staff should be a mix of people they can reasonably expect to trust blindly and people whose abilities stand out. I think stricter regulations on this matter should involve less in the way of outright bans on the use of family members (surely at least the spouse should be allowed) and greater scrutiny on the work and pay arrangements (a mix of salary caps and overall budget caps).

        So, whilst I agree that the system as it was and, to some extent, still is now is not working the way it should, and should be rectified, I’d be wary of going the black and white route. I certainly don’t believe it will make for better policy (aside it might a little more entertainment from MP’s cock-ups and more gossip about backstabbing: after all, who’d work for an MP if they didn’t plan to have a political career themselves?)

        • 48
          Spank Sinatra says:

          ‘…………surely at least the spouse should be allowed’

          If by that you mean a sufficient condition for employment is the ability to lie on your back and open your legs entitles you to taxpayers money typifies the attitude of our elected representatives. By your logic, any elected council leader would also be free to employ his/her spouse as their PA rather than be obliged to follow an open recruitment process. The system sadly remains rotten to the core. I had hoped my 4 weeks in Burgundy would have eased my disgust – plus ca change

          • warafuckinlarf says:

            By this description you mean, of course, a mistress.Slash is talking about a wife, you know asprins and stuff.

          • SlashnBurn says:

            Since “competence” for the job can be something as simple as being able to type without spelling mistakes, I question the whole point of the open recruitment process. Not that such a process would prevent abuse in the first place: it ALWAYS boils down to personal choice, no matter how “objective” you make the process. And, no matter how well qualified you may be, you just failed my interview, so the missus has it, as far as I’m concerned. Try Peter Mandelson for your next job application.

        • 65
          Sir William Waad says:

          Actually they are people who do next to nothing but are paid out of public funds in order to augment MP’s salaries.

        • 116
          Batty Hattie Harmanescu says:

          whose allegiance to one political party is self-evident, and whose allegiance to the MP that employs them is even more so

          Really? What about Sally Bercow, or indeed any MP’s spouse. There is no reason to believe they share their spouse’s loyalties to any particular party.

          • SlashnBurn says:

            That doesn’t invalidate my point: it may be true that, on some occasions, life partners have different political ideas (and whether they are trusted or not to deal with their spouse’s professional issues is a matter for the MP’s own judgement), but when they do it’s not unlikely that they are trusted more than any other person. This qualifies them for certain jobs within an MP’s entourage much more than paper certificates.

            Let me re-iterate: an MP’s staff are NOT civil servants, even if they are paid by the public purse. They are paid by the public purse in order to allow MP’s to do their job in the best possible way. They do not work for the general good, but to serve the interests of a very specific political side and openly against any opposing political side, because this is what a democratic system requires, i.e. not a uniform point of view but a clash of points of view. The problem is not that they were acting in their own interest, the problem is that they were taking the piss. I’m not arguing that MP’s are saints, but that whilst stamping out malpractice we should be concerned about how much we complicate things for the (maybe too few, but still necessary) honest MP’s. I mean, Tony Blair never hired a member of his family, but that didn’t make him a good, competent and honest MP/Prime Minister, did it?

        • 129
          We are all cynics now so piss off says:

          Damage control

      • 49
        Dave says:

        What a scandal this is and why isn’t the MSM saying more about it?

      • 99
        Capt. Shadow (Retd.) - Former MI5 Wet Ops. Team says:

        As a side issue – Elaina Cohen is Khalid Mahmood’s partner!?!

        I bet he has to watch the anti-Israeli comments over the Dinner table…

      • 162
        iain says:

        Take a look at the Northern Ireland Assembly sometime.
        The scandalous abuse continues there unabated.

      • 178
        random moonbat says:

        and then got a lot of it back!

        we have enough thieves in the UK without actualy paying them!

    • 46
      anonymous says:

      surely the point here is that family members should apply for a post along with however many other independent applicants and the best candidate given the job. In the real world that would happen. In the incestuous tyrrany that is parliament the bastards remain for the most part unaccountable.

      • 50

        Guido goes off piste yet again. Guido, the art of news is to run with the most important story of the day. Honestly. you will never make a decent journalist if you don’t follow the basic rules. Please try harder to keep up. Thankyou.

        The story of the day is as follows:

        Mr Holborn from the Treasury admitted on Radio 4 this morning that George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has broken the law by failing to carry out an assessment of his budget.

        He also admitted that George Osborne had lied to the House of Commons when he said that the budget was progressive.

        The Treasury replied that the report that stated the poor have been taxed more than the rich was incorrect and selective. As they have not carried out the mandatory assessment of the budget they are unable to state that as a fact, so the Treasury is lying as well.

        Court proceedings will follow and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be charged with breaking the law by failing to carry out the legally required assessment of the budget and will have to defend his lawbreaking in a court of law.

        • 67
          Sir William Waad says:

          I shouldn’t get too excited about this if I were you.


            Don’t get too excited about the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer broke the law and lied to the Commons?

            You must be having a laugh.

          • St Tone of Bliar says:

            After 13 years of Labour we’re used to lying.

          • BBC and Govt repression of news says:

            Yes I heard one of the BBC toads working himself up into paroxisms of excitement and haranguingn the treasury spokesman after every three words of his attenpted answer. Just how much are these BBC totally unimpartial divs being paid by Labour – brown envelopes of course

        • 122
          Sir Everard Digby says:

          One basic rule being,gather a few facts first. Null points for that one. PS Sky seem to not be mentioning this,nor do the Beeb. Two more organisations falling foul of your guide to journalism?

      • 134
        Diskinfo says:

        Hazel Blears did NOT get re-elected.

    • 106
      THE_FORCE says:

      Nepotism is rife in the private sector, even more so than in the public sector. If you know somebody in a company (friend or family) you put their name down on your application form and you get them to have a word with HR. Many companies go as far as to pay their employees to actively introduce friends and family. The logic being that if you’ve passed the test they will likely pass the test too. Nonetheless, it still puts somebody with an outstanding CV at a disadvantage to somebody with an outstanding CV and an inside contact. That has to be wrong. It is who you know and not what you know and it will never change.

      • 136
        Us n Them says:

        comes down to class.

      • 139
        Victor Meldrew says:

        Not sure about that: nepotism in council offices is huge.

        Nepotism in the private sector; Yes it’s wrong, it stinks — but it has a self-correcting mechanism of senior managers & ultimately shareholders noticing declines in performance often in sales/productivity/other cash terms, bottom line. The public sector has no equivalent – waste money, run over budget? — well obviously additional taxpayers’ cash is needed…and since you are handling a larger budget you’ll be needing a promotion too.

        The absence of anything remotely recognisable as a meritocracy in the public sector is conspicuous to those of us who have worked there.

      • 141
        Must get a pseudonym one day says:

        It’s not ‘what you know’ or even ‘who you know’, but more like ‘what you know about who you know’ – that never fails, ask Mandy !

    • 108
      The Pict says:

      Campbell ranks sixth in register of births in Scotland so they just might share a surname ;-0

    • 114
      To rapid responce unit says:

      Hmm. MI5/MI6 full of MP’s family.Top cop positions members nearest and dearest.

    • 150
      HappyUK says:

      “I would trust my wife to keep our records out of the wrong hands more than anyone I might employ via ‘open competition’”

      Then your recruitment methods must be sloppy? Do you do any background searches, ask for testimonials, integrity checks etc.

      As for keeping a politicians records out of the wrong hands, what kind of information exactly, is so sacred that you have to keep it out of the public domain? Just what would you be trying to hide exactly?

      Ah, oh, I remember…

  2. 2
    anonymouse in the IPSA skirting boards says:

    Interesting. Dan Poulter is the only “new” MP among this list. Returning MPs were given a concession to continue employing their family members but new boys and girls were not.

    Liddell-Grainger looks like he’s doing a Conway, unless these are just pass-holders and not paid staff.

  3. 3
    sockpuppet #4 says:

    Just a coincidence.
    In my telephone directory there are hundreds of people called Liddell-Grainger.

  4. 4
    Lard Presclott of Bulimia, Bog Seats, Beams,Bellies,Banjos,Punches, Croquet, Pies, Jags 'n' Shags says:

    Like incest – keep it in the family and look what results you get.

  5. 5
    concrete pump says:

    I don’t see anything wrong with a male MP using his wife as his private secretary, that should be it though. Anything else takes the piss somewhat.

    I see that wanker Julian ‘fucking twat’ Brazier is on the list, the c*nt got trainspotting banned from the local cinema in Canterbury.

    Fucking mongpants fuckhole.

  6. 7

    This proves nothing, there are tens of thousands of Liddell-Graingers, Dorries, Robathans and Godsiffs and it reads to me all like a bit of a coincidence.

    • 80

      Looking at the list, Tony, it seems that there must be even more Liddell-Graingers in the population than I had feared – it beggars belief that three should be found working for the same MP otherwise…

  7. 10
    Urban Tory says:

    I wouldn’t say it is always nepotism, If your son had just graduated with a first in PPE from Oxford and he wanted to work for you why wouldn’t you employ him?

    He would clearly be the candidate.

    Most of them aren’t but some will be!

    • 14
      sockpuppet #4 says:

      What a horrible picture.

      Your dad/mum is an MP. and you are intelligent. But not intelligent enough to want to do something different with your life and repeat the whole sorry saga.

      I’d suggest said young person should go surfing or become a banker or become a binman, or live in a housing estate and watch jeremy kyle. Anything.

    • 38
      bergen says:

      Sorry but I can’t agree.If the son/daughter is so able then he/she can take their chances with any of the other 650 MPs-they would have a flying start over other candidates anyway.

  8. 12
    50 Calibre says:

    I’m sure we can all look forward to Gordon Brown making a statement to the house about this very soon…

  9. 13
    Southern Softy says:

    They should be able to “employ” whomever they want, as long as it is only one person and no more than average pay – around £24 grand.
    Not too many people in business can aford to pay the £40 grand these freeloaders get.

  10. 17
    I use the red flag as toilet paper says:

    The pigs just cannot stop filling their ‘family’ bank accounts at our expense. Professional troughers.

  11. 20

    I wouldn’t employ Lady Skint, mainly because the totty I’m currently using has knockers that would put Bryony Gordon in the shade.

    Plus, my little visits to Edgware Road might draw unwelcome attention.

  12. 21
    Arthur Dent says:

    I note that you include Stephen Benn (Brother of Hilary) in your list, but this is misleading, Hilary does not employ Stephen who has for many years been in full time employment with the Royal Society of Chemistry as their Parliamentary Affairs Officer (Hence the Commons Pass, but no financial contribution)

  13. 22
    Afghanistan Banana Stand says:

    I notice that Ian Liddel-Grainger appears three (3) times on that list.
    Presuming it’s the same guy(!), does this mean he is receiving 3 x tax payer funded wages?

    I think we should be told.

  14. 23
  15. 26
    Border Terrier says:

    Ian Liddell-Granger is a grubby populist representing a safe seat in Somerset, having failed to win a similar one in Devon.

    Ian is a Scottish lad and like so many fellow Scots [e.g. Liam Fox, Eleanor Laing, James Gray, Ben Wallace] has not the courage or wit to stand for let alone win a seat in his homeland.

    • 35
      A Scottish MP says:

      We can’t be held responsible for the lack of quality MP’s who are Engalish!

    • 66
      Blue Lady says:

      What would be the point of a Scottish born Conservative standing for a Scottish seat. We all know the Scots will only vote for someone wearing a res rosette, even if happened to be a monkey.

  16. 28
    Genghiz the Khan says:

    Any female MPs copying the unlamented Jacquiboot Smith?

    Using the maiden name, but employing husband as a secretary.

  17. 31
    Don't shoot the messenger says:

    Ah yes, the conservatives are back in power:
    Budget hits the poorest hardest, says IFS

    Oh, and well done Guido & co-conspiritors on highlighting just how little MP’s have learned from expense-gate. They seem to be using the tactic of “if you ignore the public long enough then they will eventually give up”. Let’s hope some of the better journalists (for their are some) realise that this is more important than X-factor voice tune stuff, and run with this?

  18. 32
    Mrs Huggins says:

    I blame the dickwads who elected ‘em.

  19. 37
    asiaseen says:

    Bob Spink sounds like a Peter Greenaway film

  20. 41
    Sir William Waad says:

    MPs strike back! Take the feeding trough away and they sneak round the back and break into the swill store. Snoffle snoffle gulp gurgle oink oink oink!

    We may be jumping to conclusions here, however. Some of the surnames are very widespread and could be the result of coincidences. I’m always bumping into people called Godsiff, Robathan, Tami, Dorries, Duddridge and Lidell-Grainger.

  21. 44
    anonymous says:

    the rich are maintaining the war against poor people by denying the representation. this is just another means of continuing this ‘progressive’ practice.

    • 47
      concrete pump says:

      Yeah, that’s right, the rich are at ‘war’ against the poor.

      Take that shit to ‘cif’, where some wanker might give a fuck.


    • 151
      anonymous says:

      so in exactly which ways are the electorate of the UK more represented by the latest edition of democratic government that the previous one?

  22. 45
    Unsworth says:

    What was the selection process for these positions? Given that the jobs themselves must be fairly similar, are there standard series of criteria and job descriptions? Where are the posts advertised? Is there any form of performance review? And so on.

    MPs may protest that this is all above board but plainly it is not. All of the norms of recruitment and employment have been swept aside. They cannot have it both ways. If they wish to be treated as public employees then they should act accordingly. They may say that their kith and kin are the best choice – let them explain why and how. Let just one of those listed put forward a rational and cogent explanation.

    The point has been made time and again that these people are paid for by us, therefore we should have oversight of the recruitment and selection processes. It is time that full descriptions of all paid Parliamentary posts are placed in the public domain so that we may see what the jobs entail and whether the remuneration packages are reasonable and comparable with those elsewhere. Until that happens there’s no transparency here at all. Thus MPs will continue to spend our cash and act without reference or accountability to us in any way. This is a national disgrace.

    • 56
      Selohesra says:

      One of the ‘standard series of crirtera’ is that the applicant must be prepared to share a bed with the MP – whilst the MPs spouse is not uniquely qualified for this role they do have advantage over some other seemingly qualified applicants

  23. 51

    Easy ‘Honour’ is death to integrity.

  24. 55
    Elliot Ness says:

    Well done for naming the crime families.

  25. 57
    Elliot Ness says:


    Wikileaks to publish new documents today.

    • 109
      streamfisher says:

      Swedish government to serve another bizarre arrest warrant (by proxy) tomorrow?, If they had signed up for the Tony Blair poodle agreement they could have just extradited the problem straight to a U.S jail.

  26. 58
    sockpuppet #4 says:

    Actually I’ve changed my mind.

    Give the money to idle offspring tossers who don’t really give a shit and aren’t up to the job. This is a good investment in the future. Otherwise you get the kind of odious tossers who’ve always wanted to be an MP and a prime minister, hanging around parliment, and then becoming MP’s unless they are over 99% gittish. Exhibit A: Dolly. Just think how much better the world would have been if he’d had to get a real job, and some idle MP’s kid was pissing the money against the wall at the university of essexshitre.

  27. 59
    Sir John Benn 1st Baronet says:

    I agree, nepotism ( for others ) must end!
    Keep the red flag of progressive socialism flying boys, no surrender to the ruling class and those public school toffs!!

  28. 60

    The Chancellor is a bankrobber
    But only hurt poor people
    He just loved to live that way
    And he loved to steal your money

    He taxed the poor but not the rich
    He said that’s the way the world is
    He told the poor to stop whingeing
    And saying how bad your life is

    So he came to jaz it up
    Never touched a shovel
    Told the poor to Break your back
    And don’t forget to grovel

    Gideon was a bankrobber
    He love to hurt poor people
    He just loved to live that way
    And he loved to take your money (What law?)

    George will meet his hanging rope
    Cause that’s where George is spinnin
    There’s no point in combing his hair
    The millionaires are grinning

    • 96
      Jedwouldn't says:

      Do you also write lyrics for Jedward?

    • 147
      Susie says:

      So depressing having to relive the 80s with tedious little twerps bleating second-hand protest songs which are 35 years old.

      • 159
        stilyagi_air_corps says:

        Labour in Vein

        Don’t want you in the House no more
        ‘Cause you’re shit, just like you was before
        You swore you’d changed, that you could show the way
        You proved us wrong, and brother, did we pay

        Oh, God, now, Blair should be Inside
        Oh God, you’re sounding really tired!

        Lying in bed, I’m glad I voted Blue
        And down that alley, what I’d do to you!
        The mess you left is really like a map
        Of thirteen years of worthless Marxist crap

    • 155
      Unsworth says:

      And your point is what, exactly? What’s the point of this bollocks? Fancy yourself as some sort of poet? FGS go and post in some poetry forum where your ‘artistic’ skills might be appreciated. It’s not even fucking funny, it’s just pathetic drivel.

    • 160
      Snort,ahhh says:

      Stop making the Tories whine you cruel twat!!!

  29. 61
    Low life voter says:

    Jobs for cock suckers and minge lickers.

    • 77
      White Van Man says:

      Well almost every adult on the planet is either one or the other, I don’t believe the ability to perform oral sex is a prerequisite to employment but I dare say it helps.

  30. 62
    Loser Watch says:

    Is Ozzy the treasurer as nutty as Ozzy the druggie? The IFS study shows the budget will hurt the poorest the most. Ozzy does not come back with the maths to prove them wrong.He just denies it. What a chump.

    • 70
      Sir William Waad says:

      It won’t hurt them if they put the remote control down, get off the couch and get a job.

    • 101
      jgm2 says:

      According to the BBC….

      ‘This means that only the richest 10% of households lost more in cash terms from the Budget, than those in the bottom 60%.’

      I’d say that when the richest 10% are losing more than the bottom 60% that qualifies as ‘richest hit hardest’ not ‘poorest hit hardest’.

      Wouldn’t you?

      I think the bedwetters have been using Labour’s voodoo understanding of maths to come up with a wilful lie again.

      • 103
        prove it says:

        Lets see the sums then.

        • 105
          jgm2 says:

          Better ask the BBC. I’m quoting them.

          • jgm2 says:

            Oh, I should have made clear..the BBC are quoting the IFS…


            ‘The IFS analysis suggests that cuts to areas such as housing benefit and disability allowance would hit the poorest families to the tune of £422 between the Budget and April 2014.

            This means that only the richest 10% of households lost more in cash terms from the Budget, than those in the bottom 60%.’

            Ie the IFS agree with Osborne. The richest are hardest hit.

          • streamfisher says:

            They seem to have been working overtime to portray any and every budget proposal as wicked Thatcherite plots, what happened to the assertion that it (budget) discriminated against women financially and would be taken to the European court of human rights, personally as someone who smokes (yes I must seal myself in a pit of my own filth far away from decent folk) and likes a drink its the first budget in a decade or so in which I have not been discriminated against, they can put that up their pipe and smoke it.

        • 138
          Points of view says:

          anything out of the BBC is absolute bollox. They are still crying into their champagne bottles the loss of their annointed one and will do anything to spin any story againing the conDemos.

          Ban the lot of them and bollox to the telly tax

  31. 63
    Kunt Watch says:

    This is a huge FUCK YOU to the electorate.

  32. 64
    Blue Lady says:

    Don’t forget the most free loading of them all. Jaqui Smith paid her husband over £40K p.a. to do what – watch blue movies all day? How many of us would love to put our spouse on the payroll at taxpayers expense with the extra generous pension to look forward to and all the other perks. Unlike most secretaries, they re not stuck in an office all day and they pay themselves twice the going rate of most secretaries.

  33. 69
    Jus Askin says:

    Guido, what’s all this about George Osborne breaking the law?
    What’s the scoop?

  34. 72
    Anonymous says:

    What about Malcolm Bruce?

    • 181
      Victor Meldrew says:

      What about him? He’s another creative accounting prick, confusing his office and home expenses. He’s also a hug-a-jihadi fucking loser too.

  35. 74
    Kunt Watch says:
    go to streetshirts and design your own.let the bastards know.

    • 148
      streamfisher says:

      I want one with Hunt Watch written on it in very large white letters against a black background.

  36. 76
    Gone Fuckin mental says:

    Not fuckin good enough !

  37. 84
    Kill em all,no excuses says:

    “Many MPs now employ their wives / partners in their maiden names to disguise the dodge”. Dodge makes it sound so prankish.Like naughty schoolboys. but its cheating and the only reason its not a crime is because they have made sure its not..however for the rest of us!!!

  38. 85
    Cato Street Conspirator says:

    These hypocritical gits (Yes, you Benn) also impose rigorous ‘equal opportunties’ policies on the civil service and local government to ensure that nepotism never gets a look in and people aren’t discriminated against on grounds of ‘race, disability, gender or sexual orientation’.

  39. 88
    A Firm Pair Of Breasts says:

    As thick as thieves and as thick as thieves.

  40. 89
    Politically Correct Geography says:

    MPs keep a lot in the Family I dare say.

    BTW when did Niger the central African country become “Neejar” eh?

  41. 107
    Pork Belly says:

    And what about all those married MP who operate in seperate names? Such as Smith & Timney?

  42. 110
    Shagger Nokes says:

    I would never employ my husband. The last thing I want, is him to know what I am up to.

  43. 112
    Anonymong says:

    Are the House of Lards passholders made public too? I bet you’ll find one too many Prescotts running amok.

  44. 117
    Sarah Tweet says:

    lovely announcement from Cornwall of the new Downing Street baby

  45. 128
    Ruth Kelly's plaything says:

    “For example Elaina Cohen is Khalid Mahmood’s partner – he dumped his wife for her ”

    Nice to see a bit of mingling between the daughters of Abraham and the sons of that other prophet.

  46. 130
    Blunketts Mutt (Move along, nothing to see here guv) says:

    Please get rid of that Hoon Mangleslime from the front page of this blog. It puts me off even visiting anymore.

    *retches* (and almost vomits)

  47. 135
    Watt Tyler says:

    The tag “Parasite” speaks volumes:

  48. 146
    Bartholomew - George Osbornes teddy says:

    Being serious (for once); the obvious reason for employing nearest and dearest is the appalling red tape around employment rights and the ability to have sensible discussions with relatives about employment matters that you cannot have with other staff (redundancies, sickness, misbehaviour, holiday, maternity etc etc) without the risk of tribunals and the like. Make employing people more flexible and the need for nepotism will be removed (even if the practice remains).

    • 164
      Cato Street Conspirator says:

      Do you mean Charles won’t succeed Elizabeth if we make employing monarchs ‘more flexible’?

  49. 166
    Anonymous says:

    I worked with my Missus for years so I don’t have a problem with MPs employing relatives PROVIDED they’re actual jobs & not dummy ones as some where

  50. 167
    Anonymous says:

    Wot about those who married there secretary

  51. 168
    Lord GNOME says:

    Dear Mr XXXXX

    Thanks for your e-mail.

    I was sorry to learn that you believe that the BBC is biased towards the Labour Party. I note that you feel that this is unacceptable.

    I’d like to assure you that we’re committed to honest, unbiased reporting and are determined to remain free from influence by outside parties, whether political or lobbyists. Impartiality forms the cornerstone of our News and Current Affairs programmes and we’ve nothing to gain by weighting our coverage in political terms or by allowing influence from any other outside body.

    We don’t seek to denigrate any view or to promote any view. Our aim is to identify all significant views and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience. Among other evidence, audience research indicates widespread confidence in the impartiality of our reporting.

    I appreciate that you may continue to feel differently and so please be assured that I’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

    The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

    Once again, thanks for taking the time to contact us.


    Leanne Bennett
    BBC Complaints

    My emphasis. Get complaining to those overpaid underworked busybodies if there is something that you do not like. You might even get insulted by a Labour candidate on Facebook!

  52. 169
    IWantToBeMoreLikeGuido says:

    I used to know Eve and Alistair Burt (and their young daughter ;)) and can truly say that I as a taxpayer am confident that I, a bedfordian get my money’s worth from Eve. (Not in the hooker way that sounds like, then she’s crap value)

    From Alistair…..hmm debatable (and more so in a hooker way!)

  53. 170
    Dave Williams says:

    Williams? About a quarter of the poulation of Wales is called Williams. There are 4 MPs with the surname Williams. Even the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrat party is called Kirsty Williams. None of whom are related.

  54. 172
    Arthur Dent says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the list from which this argument has been created is merely a list of pass holders and their sponsors. It is not a list of paid employees. It may be the case that some of the relatives on this list are indeed paid employees, but this list is not evidence of that. AS I pointed out earlier Stephen Benn is not paid by his brother Hilary Benn from the public purse. He already has a full time paid job. The fact that he has a commons pass does not put him in the trough.

    I foolishly thought you were to be relied upon.

    • 176
      Bennite says:

      “Hilary does not employ Stephen who has for many years been in full time employment with the Royal Society of Chemistry as their Parliamentary Affairs Officer.”

      And he get’s a paid job doing what, exactly? Parliamentary liaison. Which means that he goes to parliament with access that low born types like me wouldn’t get a sniff at. And how does he get access? With his parliamentary pass? And who gave him that? His brother. Who also was not hindered by his surname in getting a safe Labour seat.

      The Benns use family connections when it suits them, and decry themn when it doesn’t.

  55. 174
    Kered says:

    That’s it all the family in the trough…slop..slop. Carry on till the trough is empty!

  56. 175
    Bruce Burniston says:

    You missed Martin CATON’s wife. Perhaps she is employed under her maiden name?

  57. 177
    Sandy says:

    Yes, just how many “staff” use other names to disguise their relationship to the MP?

  58. 179
    Manc CF says:

    Didn’t Cameron ban the Shadow Cabinet from employing wives/family? Though as Grayling didn’t make it into the Cabinet maybe he’s allowed?

  59. 180
    Schrödinger's cat says:

    Moniker is due to arrive back in the UK within an hour. Any more requests for riot, insurrection, rapine, political removals (temporary or permanent), or any other of the standard services should be addressed here.

  60. 184
    Jamie Davenport says:

    is she as good looking as

    Visit Westminster and meet Jenny

Seen Elsewhere

From the IRA to Windsor Castle | WSJ
Coulson: Everything You Need to Know in 6 Seconds | MediaGuido
Mo Ansar’s Silence | Adrian Hilton
Gove Loses WWI Battle | Conservative Woman
5 Reasons Labour Likely to Win General Election | Sunny Hundal
Dave Surrounded By Topless Women | Sun
UN Loony says Britain Most Sexist Country | Sun
Farage is a Good Reason to Leave the EU | Dan Hannan
UKIP Blocked Expenses Questions | Times
NHS Showdown Coming | Paul Goodman
Sons of Brown | Telegraph

Guido-hot-button (1) Guido-hot-button (1)

Cathy Jamieson MP, Labour’s Shadow Treasury minister, commenting on Treasury analysis of the economic impact of tax changes…

“If the Treasury is looking at the economic impact of tax changes, then surely it should examine the impact of the rise in VAT and cuts to tax credits? George Osborne’s £12 billion VAT rise knocked confidence, helped to choke off the recovery and has cost families £1,350 over the last three years.”

orkneylad says:

What’s he been doing FFS, mining bitcoins?

Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:


AddThis Feed Button

Guido Reads