According to reports, Andy Burnham is so devoted to the north that he will stay there even once he is appointed prime minister, declining the Downing Street grace-and-favour apartment that comes with the position.
However, he has not always been so opposed to making his home in the capital at the public’s expense.
In his first stint as a Labour MP, he claimed on his Parliamentary expenses to rent a flat in a notorious luxury apartment complex close to Westminster.
When Dolphin Square – home to spies and prostitutes as well as politicians – was sold in 2005, its residents received tens of thousands of pounds each to give up their tenancy agreements and move out.
But while numerous MPs gave theirs to the Parliamentary authorities, Mr Burnham negotiated a unique deal that meant he was able to add almost all of his windfall of £18,200 to the already generous second home allowance.
The arrangement allowed him and his wife Marie-France Van Heel to purchase and remodel a £215,000 flat in south London, which they still own using taxpayers’ money.
It emerged during the MPs’ expenses scandal of 2009 that Mr Burnham submitted a single expenses claim for £16,644 to cover the acquisition of the property, covering their stamp duty and legal fees as well as a new kitchen.
By claiming the windfall as a parliamentary expense, Mr Burnham dodged having to pay thousands of pounds in capital gains tax – a levy that his allies want him to increase when he becomes Prime Minister.
He insisted at the time: ‘It is complete nonsense to suggest that I set out to avoid capital gains tax. My file shows I made arrangements to pay over this money in full to the fees office, and all arrangements were signed off by them. At no stage did I make any personal profit on this transaction.’
His relationship with the Commons Fees Office, which authorised MPs’ expenses for their second residences, was tense; however, several applications were either denied or postponed.
In one plaintive letter, dated December 2005, he wrote: ‘I would be very grateful if (the expenses) could be paid in the last round of the year on Friday. Otherwise, I might be in line for divorce!’
In a highly unusual development, his wife even joined in the correspondence with the authorities about their renovations, writing on one occasion: ‘I have endeavoured to include the bulk of the invoices, but invariably there are a few missing.’
When Mr Burnham filed a claim for the mortgage interest on both his north-west constituency house and the Lambeth apartment, which was permitted at the time, he was rejected.
He once submitted an ineligible claim for mortgage capital instead of interest.
He even had a £119 receipt from Ikea reduced after his claim for a £19.99 bath robe was rejected.
When the story broke, Mr Burnham, who was then Culture Secretary, insisted that he had actually claimed less than he could have done on his expenses.
‘I wish to make it clear in the strongest possible terms that I resent any suggestion that I have knowingly misused public funds as the public record shows that, in the last five years, I have under-claimed on my ACA (Additional Costs Allowance) by around £40,000,’ he said in a statement.
‘I believe this demonstrates quite clearly that I have always sought to work within the rules and the spirit of the parliamentary Green Book, and, during my time in Parliament, have not made claims for expenditure that is either extravagant or luxurious.’
After the Commons corruption investigator discovered that other MPs who resided in the building had violated the rules by pocketing their windfalls, he was under further pressure a year later to return his Dolphin Square windfall.
Four Lib Dems were told they had made ‘serious misjudgements’ and were ordered to pay back some of the money.
But a spokesman for Mr Burnham, who was not investigated by the Commissioner for Standards, claimed his use of the payout ‘enabled him to avoid making claims on expenses and saved thousands of pounds for the taxpayer’.
‘He believes any other course of action would have wasted public money … there was no personal gain to Mr Burnham,’ the spokesman said.
Figures published by the MPs’ pay body show that Mr Burnham claimed £10,700 in 2010-11 for accommodation, including £6,802 for mortgage interest before the rules were changed.
Under the revised scheme, he was reimbursed £14,499 for rent by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) the following year, along with £1,100 for council tax.
By 2017, when he stepped down, his rent had risen to £18,214.
Simon Danczuk, a former Labour MP who wrote a book about the notorious history of Dolphin Square, told the Daily Mail: ‘It’s surprising Burnham now wants to spend time in Manchester; for years he enjoyed living at the infamous Dolphin Square in SW1, home to a variety of politicians, spies, and prostitutes.
‘Indeed, when the apartment block was sold in 2005, Burnham, although his rent had been paid by the taxpayer, received a personal jackpot of £18,200 from the new landlord on agreeing to depart the complex. This only came to light when exposed in the 2009 expenses scandal.’
He went on: ‘By all accounts Burnham’s windfall became a bone of contention with the House of Parliament’s fees office, though after having had his claim rejected three times, over several months, they eventually relented.
‘The money went towards purchase and renovation of another London flat for Burnham. For all his recent reluctance to spend time in London, it’s not that long ago Burnham was living it up here and enjoying playing its property market.’
All of this makes Burnham quite the hypocrite. Look at his fellow northerners Rayner, Powell and Nandy; they all prattle on about helping the working people while robbing the public purse for their own gain.
In ten seconds, Trump resolved the majority of our problems. Ninety percent of the populace will support you if you control immigration and drill in the North Sea, but what do they do? They construct beautiful new homes for migrants and charge us exorbitant prices for “green energy,” which could or might not have any impact on the global population.
The idea that Labour represents the working class is only held by fools.
THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO 