An empty main residence, now how can that be?

I just can't think of an explanation for this series of events.

Labour MPs Ann and Alan Keen claim £137,679 for a second home near Parliament, declaring their main home to be Brentford, a massive 10 miles from the Houses of Parliament.

Now Hounslow Council have written to the troughing couple telling them that "urgent action" is needed to explain why their main home in Brentford is unoccupied. Apparently they "have been given a month to stop their local council repossessing their home... If the council does not get a satisfactory response from the Keens, it then has the power to issue an Empty Dwelling Management Order which would allow the council to take possession of the property and bring it back into use."

I just don't understand what this all means...

What expenses revelations will be in tomorrow's Telegraph?

Rumours abound that tomorrow is "couples day" in the great Telegraph expenses exposé and that Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper, who have so far not been mentioned, are top of the heap. I am tingling with anticipation...

I have been having a think about this and I can think of two other married couples who might be very nervous this afternoon: The Keens whose alleged misdemeanours I have blogged about before and the Wintertons who I have not bothered with to date. Are there any more married couples in the Commons? I could look it up but am still hard at work...

Then a thought struck me; just before the Telegraph started to print its revelations The Mail reported that:

"Three Labour MPs are said to be terrified that the release of their expenses claims will expose them as adulterers and financial cheats.

...

The three unnamed backbenchers are said to have been placed on 'suicide watch' by Labour whips, who fear they might break down when the details of their excesses come out.

Two are understood to have had extra-marital affairs with other members of Parliament.

Not only are they believed to have shared hotel rooms during annual conference get-togethers and party away days but also to have double-claimed for the rooms on their expenses.

If both MPs have claimed for the bill they will be branded frauds as well as love cheats when journalists and freedom of information campaigners sift through their receipts.

The third backbencher is said to have made 'grotesque' financial claims.

A Commons source told the Mail: 'The whips have three Labour MPs on suicide watch. That's how serious this scandal is. The whips believe they might kill themselves.'"

So "couples day" may be devoted to "unofficial" as well as "official" couples, this gets more interesting by the minute.

Meanwhile here's a picture of Ed balls preparing to do a runner...

Tory Sleaze, Tory Sleaze, Tory Sleaze

The BBC have a report entitled - "Watchdog 'baffled' by MPs' probe" which starts:

"Standards watchdog Sir Christopher Kelly says he is "baffled" as to why MPs thought it appropriate to carry out a review of their expenses themselves.

The Commons Members Estimate Committee, made up of MPs, led by Speaker Michael Martin is looking into MPs' expenses.

Sir Christopher said the results of the review were unlikely to command as much public confidence as they would if there was outside involvement in it.

The MPs' report on reform of their allowance system is due in mid-June."

Obviously some examples of the kind of expenses issues under question are called for, so who do the BBC mention:

"Tory MP Derek Conway" and "Tory chairman Caroline Spelman".

No mention of Ann Keen's life assurance policy, Barbara Follett's window cleaning bill, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper's questionable property expenses, Peter Mandelson's £3,000 shower, Tony Blair's £10,600 kitchen or the many allegations made against Peter Hain to name but a few examples.

Why would the BBC be so selective? Surely they are not biased against the Conservative party, they are after all independent by charter.

I think Libby Purves is angry

"The only regret is that while a couple of the more outrageous milkers of expenses have been sacked or demoted, most of them sail on undamaged, “within the rules”.

Not within natural justice or reasonableness: just the rules. Here is Barbara Follett, millionaire's wife, charging you and me £94 every three weeks for window-cleaning; meanwhile, Margaret Beckett's garden cost us £6,500, including rockery (so important for a minister to have a good rockery, don't you think?). Here are Ann and Alan Keen netting £100,000 of public funds by having a mortgage each, and Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper also doing rather well from his 'n' hers claims. Oh, and marvel at Peter Mandelson's new shower, for which we paid £3,000 five years ago (the ritziest shower in Hartlepool, I'll be bound).

And Tony Blair? Don't start me. Not only did his new Trimdon kitchen cost us £10,600 (plus £50 for servicing the Aga), but thanks to the fine ferrets who battled for disclosure we can now gaze, online, at the very forms on which a Prime Minister made us pay the mortgage interest on £90,000. He borrowed it against a house which - Mrs Blair writes - only cost them £30,000, plus the same again to do it up. Is that a legitimate expense? Did Blair need to spend that money in order to have a billet in his constituency? No. It was bunce. The loan - whose interest we paid - went to fund his future property in Connaught Square.

It was “within the rules”. Just as Honourable Members - who have hobbled employers with strict anti-discrimination law - can pay public salaries to their family members without any open interviews to see if there are better candidates; just as the ridiculous “John Lewis List” lets them charge the taxpayer £150 per dining chair, demand free dry-cleaning for their personal clothes, and spend £795 of our money on a sideboard and £750 on a stereo (God forbid they might have to go to Currys). They may charge a grand total of £23,000 of home equipment, to keep for ever, untaxed. As for MEPs, draw a veil. It's Monday. Nobody feels strong enough to think about that."

That's from Libby Purves's column in today's Times do read the rest. Personally I found it a touch sanctimonious about how wonderful working mothers are and how hard they work and how badly they are treated, but at least she recognises that Caroline Spelman's "crime" is minor when compared to the "within the rules" claims of many senior Labour MPs.