Harry Cohen has benefited from Guido’s attention in the past.   The chippy left-wing MP who disgraces the Leyton parliamentary seat once held by Winston Churchill claimed substantially more for his second home  and expenses than any other MP in London, in fact his annual expense claims of £123,718 are £30,000 higher than neighbouring Walthamstow Labour MP Neil Gerrard’s claim of £92,228 and greater than Chingford Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith’s allowance of £104,222.

He claimed “I am almost certainly the most professional MP Leyton and Wanstead has ever had, and that includes Winston Churchill.”

Despite Leyton being a mere half an hour from Westminster on the Central Line tube, Harry Cohen claimed the maximum tax free second home subsidy of £21,63.  The Metropolitan Police has begun a criminal inquiry into Harry Cohen, who claimed more than £70,000 for a “second home” while renting out his main property.  Perhaps the Met Police might want to investigate other MPs doing the same trick. Guido has asked the question before: where is Gordon’s first home that entitles him to claim a second home allowance?

Gordon lives in grace and favour accomodation in Downing Street, he has use of the grace and favour Chequer’s mansion.  He pays nothing in rent or mortgage for those properties.  When he married he adroitly gave to Sarah the flat he bought cheaply in dubious circumstances from Robert Maxwell’s estate and Guido understands they now rent it out at a profit.  That leaves only his old Fife home.  It is clearly his real home, it is the only one he owns. Yet he designates it as his “second home” for expenses purposes.

See : Gordon Claims for His Second Home: Where is His First Home?

Congratulations to Alastair Campbell on his prepping, Gordon came over surprisingly well with Piers. Very low bar for expectations mind you..

UPDATE :  Piers Morgan wrote in the Mail before tonight’s broadcast that

Gordon Brown had finally agreed to sit down with me for an interview entirely about his personal life, with no political statements or policy debate permitted.  ’What’s your agenda, here?’ he smiled nervously, when he arrived at the studio.  ’To perform a miracle and make you sound human,’ I smiled back.

Guido agrees with Fraser, it was the miracle of television…

Piers Morgan writes…

Gordon Brown had finally agreed to sit down with me for an interview entirely about his personal life, with no political statements or policy debate permitted.  ’What’s your agenda, here?’ he smiled nervously, when he arrived at the studio.  ’To perform a miracle and make you sound human,’ I smiled back.

Award for the most obscure story in this morning’s papers has to go to The Telegraph. Apparently Gordon is cutting down his intake of Kit-Kats, and replacing them with bananas. Sources close to the Prime Minister’s snacking preparation confirmed that he will now only eat Kit-Kats when under “extreme-pressure”. So that must be fairly frequently then.

Gordon better watch out though, too many bananas can have a dangerous effect. Eating up to nine bananas a day, such as the Prime Mentalist is reported to be doing, can cause a build up of potassium.  This can cause gastrointestinal problems, kidney failure or even cardiac arrest.

It is not known whether David Miliband has decided to try a different type of coup.

Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy says…

“Sometimes he is rubbish on telly and that is the truth and I have said it before and in a world where the premium is on a seven-second clip or a soundbite, Gordon and his intellect do not fit into seven seconds.”

No wonder Gordon was so keen to stay in Northern Ireland today, he knew he was due a battering over banking at PMQs and poor Harman had to take the flak. Surprise, surprise that within an hour of PMQs finishing, the BBC gets tipped that Brown will be returning to the mainland today, before any deal has been reached.  So what was the point of him staying another night?

In a last deluded bid to exert influence on the world stage Gordon has once again been sounding off about the deluded global  Tobin tax. Melvyn King put the boot in yesterday: “I don’t know anyone on the international circuit who’s enthusiastic about it … Of all the measures being considered, the Tobin tax is probably at the bottom of the list.” Gordon would have known that this was going to be raised at PMQs today and forced Harriet to take a bullet for him. Once a coward…

By cowering across the water Gordon has even let the Tories gain ground on him and his relationship with his beloved Obama. Hague was able to ally the Tories with Obama’s ideas for banking reform and slam the government’s notion that people would actual listen to anything Brown suggests anymore. Harriet was poorly briefed and floundered, Gordon must be wondering if, had he fought, he would have been able to defend himself better. If only he had a little courage.

It seems Gordon was not content with just the Smith Institute as his personal play thing and slush fund. Perhaps the most damaging allegation by Peter Watt yet, has been the emergence of Gordon’s secret “fund with no name“. Watt accuses Brown of siphoning donations to the tune of fifty grand a year to his own private polling fund, the only record of which was a tatty old exercise book. How very Gordon.

As regular readers will remember, when the Charity Commission reported that The Smith Institute, despite their many failings in terms of political neutrality were not paying the salary of Gordon’s private yank pollster Bob Shrum, Guido will admit to some confusion as to how Brown had managed to wriggle his way out of this. It now appears that Shrum could well have been paid out of this second, secret “fund with no name.” Whatever this fund was being used for it was breaking the rules for personal benefits that MPs must declare. The rules state that MPs must “provide information of any financial interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions.” Unsurprisingly a complaint has been put in to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards:

Guido reckons there is a very strong case for an investigation into this murky secretive fund.

Ed Balls may be an unpleasant bully, but he is no fool.  He knows Labour is going to lose the election and he knows he will be blamed almost as much as Brown, for he is Gordon’s homunculus.  The politics of reckless dividing lines, big government over-spending, the vicious briefing against internal party enemies, his personal use of “Mr” McBride to poison politics and his low, lying Machiavellian ways are not going to be faulted for Labour’s defeat if he can help it.  If they are, his ambitions will be thwarted. In private he and his few allies are blaming the prospect of defeat on Hoon and Hewitt’s recent divisiveness.

Labour’s defeat will, he and other loyalists claim implausibly, be nothing to do with the years of kamikaze politics from Balls and Brown…

You read it here first:

Dear Colleague,

As we move towards a General Election it remains the case that the Parliamentary Labour Party is deeply divided over the question of the leadership. Many colleagues have expressed their frustration at the way in which this question is affecting our political performance. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the only way to resolve this issue would be to allow every member to express their view in a secret ballot.

This could be done quickly and with minimum disruption to the work of MPs and the Government. Whatever the outcome the whole of the party could then go forward, knowing that this matter had been sorted out once and for all.

Strong supporters of the Prime Minister should have no difficulty in backing this approach. There is a risk otherwise that the persistent background briefing and grumbling could continue up to and possibly through the election campaign, affecting our ability to concentrate all of our energies on getting our real message across.
Equally those who want change, should they lose such a vote, would be expected by the majority of the PLP to devote all of their efforts to winning the election. The implications of such a vote would be clear – everyone would be bound to support the result.

This is a clear opportunity to finally lay this matter to rest. The continued speculation and uncertainty is allowing our opponents to portray us as dispirited and disunited. It is damaging our ability to set out our strong case to the electorate. It is giving our political opponents an easy target.

In what will inevitably be a difficult and demanding election campaign, we must have a determined and united parliamentary party. It is our job to lead the fight against our political opponents. We can only do that if we resolve these distractions. We hope that you will support this proposal.

Yours fraternally,

Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt