Could Bob Spink be the only MP that HASN'T abused his expenses

On the premise that if you don't ask, you don't get, we came out and asked Bob Spink if he'd been abusing the expenses system.

Bob replied and pointed out that he is the best value MP according to the Sunday Telegraph and the BBC and that he isn't aware of anything that breaks the rules or is wrong. He even apologised for claiming expenses!

Following this email exchange, Bob sent the following email to his mailing list:

Dear Friends,

I apologise for taking part in the MP's allowance scheme. I have been saying the system is discredited for years, and have tabled motions in Parliament calling for all allowances, personal employment of staff, etc, to be ended and replaced with a more acceptable system.

But I still took part in the system as it was and I regret that and apologise sincerely to my constituents.

I am delighted that the main parties which totally rejected my motions for change, are now embracing that change.

So far as I know, I have not contravened the rules in any way, although I fully accept that the rules are wrong and MPs must give explanations.

When I became an MP in 1992, I followed the practices of my predecessor, Sir Bernard Braine, in claiming the allowances so I could do a better job for my constituents. I have been judged as the hardest working MP and now, by an official audit (Sunday Telegraph) as the best value for money MP in the Eastern Region, taking account of my expenses, salary and work rate. I claim a little under the average MPs' expenses, but still manage, with my superb staff, to deliver one of the best services of any MP, for my constituents and country.

I could not do my job as I do without my work-flat three minutes walk from parliament and I personally subsidise this by over £10,000 a year and make little or no personal use of it.

I used my food allowance to help fund my donated charity dinners, teas and bottles, etc. I stopped claiming for food in recent years and have not made any claim for the £25 per day subsistence allowance. I also stopped claiming petty cash, I now submit full receipts for the stamps, publications, etc. which enable me to do my job. I have used and subsidised my home as my office, thereby saving public funds.

I have never 'manipulated' the designation of my 'second home' even though I could have done so within the rules. My first home is in Castle Point with you, my constituents, and my Westminster work-flat is just that. I never took a penny for a second income. The biggest abuse of all is MPs taking a full salary for the full time 'MP job', and then spending part of their time elsewhere earning additional much bigger salaries. Why is this not exposed by the media?

We MPs must hang our heads in shame; we must show humility, work even harder on the issues and stop the silly political and personal bickering. That's what the public want from us. MPs' allowances may have been ok in Disraeli's or even Churchill's times, but they are not acceptable now and I am delighted that the change, which I have almost alone among MPs been demanding, will now take place.

Please let me know if I can ever be of any help to you on any matter at any time.

Very best wishes.

Bob

Dr. Bob Spink

MP for Castle Point

Houses of Parliament London SW1A 0AA Tel: 020 7219 8468 mob: 07957 543 648 email: spinkr@parliament.uk

I don't think anyone would begrudge legitimate expenses for an MP and that includes a second home in London for those MPs that are outside reasonable commutable distance of Westminster. It's those thieving gits that are claiming second home allowances for houses outside London or even further away than their primary home or who move the title of their second home around their property investment portfolio to refurb them at our expense and avoid paying capital gains tax that need stringing up.

Bob had no choice but to take part in the corrupt expenses system because there we no alternative system to use. He tried to change the system and was stopped by the same corrupt politicians that have now been exposed for abusing it. He didn't make claims for expenses that the taxpayer would find morally reprehensible.

UKIP is committed to small government and low taxation. The expenses system is open to abuse and costs the taxpayer millions. An MPs basic salary is £63k - if they can't pay their personal expenses out of that salary (including the cost of travelling to work and eating and drinking during the day, like we all have to) then they are far too removed from reality to run the country properly.

There's no point flip flopping between the same corrupt parties every few years, we need real change. There is only one party that stands for what the electorate wants - good schools, good health care, small government, personal freedoms, low taxation and an end to the UK's membership of the European Empire - and that party is UKIP. Why waste your vote on a party that doesn't stand for what you believe in?