Your arrogance and contempt for voters in the High Peak appears to know no bounds. Why do we have to publish or names on your website to ask our elected representative questions? If we take the time to raise honest concerns the least you can do, as our highly paid elected representative, is do us the courtesy of answering our questions instead of ducking the concerns the people you have the privilage to represent raise. Can I remind you that you accepted my vote anonymously at the last election and unless you start addressing my concern on this site you will turn a loyal life time Labour loyalist against you and you will have to accept my and many other constituents anonymous vote at the rapidly approaching general elections. The name of the author does not in any way alter the issues or mean that you can hide from them. Be honest and open and answer the points raised on this website and not in private replies, after all you are all for honesty and openess according to at least one of your replies to comments raised in this site.

Mr Levitt, you appear reluctant to give a straight answer to a straight question so perhaps I can ask you to address some very specific questions about one single expense you have claimed. I will pose these questions numerically so there is no doubt in your mind that you have answered my concerns as your constituent. 1) Why do you need a hairdryer? 2) I believe you claim the hairdryer was to help your athlete’s foot ailment. Was the hairdryer medically prescribed as the best medical treatment for your athlete’s foot? 3) Have you also claimed for foot power for your athlete’s foot? 4) If you have not claimed for the powder is that because you did not buy the commonly recommended medication or did you feel it inappropriate to claim for items used to treat your personal health, such as a hairdryer? 5) Would you find it acceptable for High Peak Borough Council clerical Officer claimed for a hairdryer would find that an acceptable and legitimate expense? 6) If the answer to question four is no, why is it a morally or legitimately acceptable for you to claim such an expense? 7) If the answer to question four is no, why is it acceptable for you to make such a claim? 8) Why are you insulting the intelligence of your own constituents with your claim that your hairdryer was used to treat your athelete’s? 9) Whatever it’s intended use, your wife’s hair or your poorly feet, how is a hair dryer an expense wholly and necessarily incurred as part of your role as an MP?

I am not sure who the Mayor you refer to is but not me - I am just one of your thousands of unhappy constituents. No Tom, can you tell me when you voted as you say you did prior to 30 Apr 09 as I can't find any record of it. The record shows that you did not vote for all our (all MPs) expenses being published ...or has this weblink misrepresented your votes ? www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/tom_levitt/high_peak It shows you voted to reject the recommendations as follows: Recommendation 1 was for a "robust new system of practice assurance involving regular financial health checks on records kept and processes used in Members' offices with outside professional teams covering about 25% of Members each year". This was substituted by a "rigorous internal system of audit". Recommendation 2 would have extended "the scope of the audit engagement so that it is the same as for other public bodies." Recommendation 3 would have reduced the receipt threshold from £25 to zero so that all claims, however small, would have had to be backed by receipts. Recommendation 4 was for the Green Book (setting out the rules on allowances for Members) to be revised to specify more detailed rules. Recommendation 6 was for MPs to no longer be able to claim reimbursement for furniture and household goods or for capital improvements. Recommendation 7 was that MPs representing constituencies in outer London should be eligible to claim half of any overnight expenses allowance. Recommendation 13 was for the Additional Costs Allowance to comprise of a £19,600 maximum budget for accommodation (excluding furniture, household goods and capital improvements) but operating on the basis of itemised reimbursement and a flat rate of £30 for daily subsistence. What you voted against, and why I wrote to complain to you about last year, has been proven by recent events to be totally inadequate for purpose. You have not given a full breakdown of your expenses - they are what you want to present - I can't see wreaths or anything else rejected by the Fees office on there. If the wreath was invalid then why not cross it out before presenting it ? If you did get paid it how long after the payment did you refund it ? You didn't bother crossing out your £649 bathroom cabinet (why not IKEA ? - it serves a purpose) and extensive, expensive bathroom work which adds value to the property. I am paying for that improvement and your mortgage interest upon a flat you will sell and make a personal profit upon - it is so wrong, why can't you see that ?? If you can't then the rest of us can and we will vote accordingly. It Your response shows that you have no contrition, shame or judgement I'm afraid and you do not deserve to be our MP.

Thanks to all who have replied to this thread. Please note that in the interests of transparency and accountability I am not replying directly to those which are either completely anonymous or pseudonymous, or who I have reason to believe do not live in High Peak, nor to those where I do not think a reply is necesary. A full breakdown of my expenses can be found on the Tom's Expenses tab above. As far as the wreath is concerned, an invoice was submitted to the Fees Office accidentally by a member of my staff. This is not a sacking offence. I knew that the claim was not valid, I did not expect the £16.50 to be paid and it was not paid. I am surprised that a former Conservative Mayor of High Peak has chosen to attack me for this in emotive terms. Whereas I have paid for more than one wreath every year since 1997 out of my own money, it is the practice of High Peak Borough Council to pay for the Mayor's wreath from Council Tax.

It doesn't matter what the policy of some other individual or organisation is. The question is simply, "Is this what we expect of our MP?"

You said, "I am not replying directly to those ... where I do not think a reply is necesary". You didn't reply to my question, previously posted, of "Why hasn't your voting record been strongly in favour of transparency? (See: http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1637&dmp=996)": perhaps you don't think a reply is necessary. I'd be grateful if you would give a straight answer. You're putting up a strong defence on your probity over allowances, and I suspect you'll end up with little to answer for, compared to other MPs. But do you feel that this fiasco is a useful distraction from an examination of your value for money as an MP? Of the 3020 votes since you've been an MP, you've disagreed with your party on just 13 occasions (0.4%). Have you done what High Peak asked you to do, which is to represent us fairly?

So, you have reason to believe that some comments are not worthy of a response now? Unbelievable - you have some explaining to do to the electorate but some are more worthy than others - particularly those who value privacy and use a pen name. The fact that you suggested that you had reason to believe to that some of the people who took the time to comment here actually live outside of the High Peak suggests you have the ability to check where they are from the entry - what else are you checking up on and more importantly, why? Regardless of where one lives, they paid for your bathroom, they paid for your hair-dryer and other associated items that were claimed for. Your latest response is just unbelievable, the country is falling apart around your ears but still you hang onto this idea that we are not worthy of a response despite the revelations we're reading everyday. Resign the seat and let's start again because you make a mockery of democracy and the right of people to speak freely about such matters. No doubt I'll be getting a knock on the door from the thought police soon.

I wrote to Mr Levitt about a year ago to complain about his unwillingness to support a transparent Parliament. At that time he had been absent from two votes and voted against the rest. He, and many other MPs, did eventually vote for the two motions in April but that was only when they were whipped and the outcome was certain. Tom's letter of response to me was was a combination of denial, refusal and indignation - pointing out that teachers and nurses didn't have to do it either.. I pointed out that other public servants do not police themselves like MPs, as a member of the Armed Forces OUR expenses are closely scrutinised - I would be court martialled for some of the expenses I have read about recently. If this disclosure had never been made (which he was opposed to) then we would never have heard about Mr Levitt's 'errors' and he would not have repaid the money - just not good enough for me. Who was at fault for the mortgage and wreath ?...anyone sacked ? - hardly going to sack yourself or wife ! Mr Levitt will leave Parliament within a year anyway (big fat pension & hand out to follow). No need to work 60 hours a week for which he is well paid, call a by election and you will be out that day. A life long Labour supporter, I am disgusted by him and the whole motley crew and I will never vote Labour again and I will try to persuade everyone else I meet to reject them - he & they have let us down disgracefully.

I did not vote against publication of expenses. I voted in favour of all our expenses being routinely published to Freedom of Information standards. This would have made individual Freedom of Information queries unnecessary. That publication will happen this summer, and people will still be able to ask for exactly the same information under FoI if they so wish.

I have heard all the news and thought "ahhh but hightpeak, were I live will not be party to such excesses, no.." how wrong was I ... I'm discussed! Seems like “the system let us, so we did". This is not justification! Mp's should set an example, even my kids have been asking what MP's had done wrong to be on the news so much! http://msn.shoothill.com/ Staffing and office costs aside:- Stationery: £2,025 Second Home: £22,450 Communication: £17,315 Travel: £14,287 I'd like to see a break down on these. At a time where some of my local schools can't afford to buy crayons or stationary and are having to cut back on staffing, even through rose coloured spectacles, the figures seem excessive. Mr Levitt, put yourself in the shoes of someone with a normal job working hard(trying to keep hold of it and pay the bills AND COUNCIL TAX etc.) can you hand on heart say the figures are reasonable? If so, maybe an election REALLY is needed - but who is left to vote for ??? Maybe cheaper travel arrangements / less of it? Do you really need that second home? Some common sense needed ? Set it right for next year ? because:- This cow have been milked enough! In any real job, most of these guys would be sacked for “creative expenses" but when the tax payer is footing the bill, it’s conveniently “within the rules". my £0.02 ( not claimed back on expenses )

My full expenses 2004-08 are now on this web site - see panel to left of screen. You may wish to see a Parliament populated only by those rich enough to be able to afford to live in London and High Peak without incurring any expenses but I - and most other people, on sober reflection - would not.

Do you know what? I'd like to see a parliament populated by people who wish to serve first - nothing more. It's not hard to build a lodging residence for MP's, nurses have them, the police have section houses and the armed forces live in squalor at the governments behest, so it's not hard to allocate an apartment for the term of an MP's office and it's not hard or unreasonable to pay Pickfords to move you out at the end of your term. You have a good salary that you choose to earn, no-one forced you, so you can afford to eat and cloth yourself better than 95% of your constituents, you don't need extra money for that. The state can provide you a secretary, supplies and office space for your official duties - not all that sure what else you need. This has nothing to do with money or socio-economic class which increasingly is being mooted a la Labour politics of the 1970's and 80's - it's to do with public service and transparency regardless of political affiliation. Both of which are concepts alien to our elected 'representatives'.

It is my opinion that if you are an MP or want to be an MP, you should only be able to claim the BARE essentials, petrol, public transport, whatever. If you are an MP you should be doing it because you are passionate about your country, and beacuase you want to make a 'real' change to our system and maintain it. Therefore, you should not be interested in claiming for anything but the essentials! Tom Levitt, in my eyes is a criminal, and is no different than someone commiting benefit fraud, I am self employed, why can i not claim for all the wonderful and wierd things that these jokers can? it makes me sick. Obviousley i have lost complete confidence in Tom Levitt as an MP and politics as a whole. (on top of this, we have made numerous attempts to contact Mr. Levitt previously on various matters, and not once has he had the decency to even try to reutrn our calls)

My office has no record of ever being contacted by anyone with your name. I see from the electoral register that you live in New Mills. I would be happy to respond personally to you, should you email me at tomlevittmp@parliament.uk As for the other points you raise, please see my reply to David Seddon below.

The whole expenses issue has shown what a thoroughly reprehensible bunch of people represent us. You would have us believe that you do what you do because you care and you desire to serve. In fact, the truth is that you do what you do because you get to line your own pocket, live a very comfortable life and then you retire with a whopping pension that most of us could only dream of. Don't patronise us with talk of moats and saunas when you know that you were one of those who tried to keep MPs expenses from the public arena. I have worked in London for the last 25 years and I am not provided with a flat on which my mortgage interest is paid so that when I sell it I can retain all the profit! What you and your colleagues across all parties have been doing for the last umpteen years is a total disgrace and it would be nice if just one or two of you hung your head in shame and apologised for what you have done. You may not have broken the law but you have abused your position and exploited rules that you and your colleagues wrote for your own gain. If you had the slightest sense of decency you would resign or demand of your leader an immediate General election and let the people you serve decide your fate.

I'm puzzled by the assertion you made that the press connived with criminals. Given the police saw no public interest in investigating such an assertion does this constitute another mistake/misjudgement? I take it you will be apologising to the 'criminals' concerned? So, with public interest in mind, may I take it that you bow to the 'court of public opinion' and that you will be resigning the seat and forcing an early election for the High Peak member of parliament? That, after all, is what the 'court of public opinion' demand. This is not about money any more - it's about moral authority and that's where any mitigation by MP's begins to fall apart - a member of the public would not get a second chance Sir and that's why you are now being hoisted by your own petard.

i find some of the personal attacks on mr levitt here quite staggering. i too am appalled by the behaviours of some MP's, but dont tar them all with the same brush! mr levitt makes an important point about the role of maternity leave in his case distorting the sensationalist press coverage. the system needs change, but MP's also need second homes and expenses to do their job and many work diligently long hours in doing so. we should be careful what we wish for, or risk ending up with a parliament full of the super-rich like we had 200 years ago or even worse, we'll end up with UKIP and the BNP.

You have to be joking!! Of course I am sure that there are some decent folk in parliament but I'm afraid Mr Levitt is not one of them. He has abused the system (albeit within the law) and he has the audacity to try and defend himself. Are we really to believe that his stationery bill was right or that the claim for a wreath was by some office junior?? Like so many he's been caught with his nose in the trough or his trousers down - whatever analogy you prefer - he's a disgrace and should go and go now!!

Mr Levitt, you say you want to see full disclosure of expenses, yet you fought so hard to prevent this from happening. I see from theyworkforyou.com you voted against transparency. Until April however , when you appear to have changed your stance. The only way to stop the abuse is total openness on how our money is spent. Nothing else will do.

This whole debacle just makes me very sad. I feel like I have lost my trust in a dear lifelong friend (Labour. How will I reconcile this with my voting intention?

Cathy, have strength: think of Sure Start, NHS waiting lists, tax credits, interest/mortgage rates, national minimum wage, unemployment (until recent recession), crime rates, international development...

I wonder how many of the emails and letters you have received regarding expenses have beeen typed or written in company time or with company pens or even been stamped with company franking machines? or is this ok because the writer is not an MP. Yes the expenses debate should continue and changes made, but there will always be abuse by a cross section of society and there is a difference between those who wilfully break the law or use it to their own advantage and those who negligently do so. I still believe people who want to become MPs do so with the aim of helping their society and not because of the money they can make out of it and the day that belief goes is the day I give up. Where were the people who are now shouting, when we went to war with Iraq all because of oil or where are their voices with regard to Zimbabwe and the atrocities which have continued for the past twenty plus years, or Dafur and many other Africa nations - or is this removed from their lives because they are so far away. Where is the public outcry about the £16 million that has gone into one person's pension scheme to pay £750k for life. MP's expenses is trivia compared to this. Yes the rules need to be changed, but what should we do sack all the MPs who have 'fiddled' their expenses because they are not trustworthy despite their record of support for their constituency, and elect another lot who we can then oust when they do something wrong. MP's should be an open book in their lives and their constituents should be able to see any aspect of the money side of their payments but with this will come apathy. Too much information will make people disinterested and leave the door open for further abuse. Democracy is about ruling by the people. People are human beings with human failings and the sooner people realise this the sooner we can go forward.

No second home available. My wife and I are pensioners. I have worked all my life and we have raised four children, three of them now working tax payers, one attending University. We do acquire assistance with rent payments in retirement as I have never been on a large wage. .Recent legislation by the ‘Labour’ Government reduced benefits to many families in Glossop and Hadfield, and caused severe hardship to many families. The average loss in benefit amounted to £20 per week. Mr Levitt presumably watched this legislation through Parliament, not queering the effects on High Peak residents until the start of a high profile campaign involving the local newspapers, CAB and Shelter. There have since been evictions as predicted. My wife and I have only one home Mr Levitt and we may not have that for long.

No, this was not legislation but a routine redrawing of boundaries for rent comparison purposes. The Rent Service made a bizarre proposal which I opposed (with Mr Owen's support) and they were forced to retract. Then a court case last summer (about the Sheffield boundaries) put everything on hold until the Government - with my active support - changed the legislation to allow our review to recommence this January. The revised proposal (to link Glossop with Tameside) is not perfect but is much better than before. As the principal consultee HPBC acknowledges that the new proposal, resulting in a far lower impact on Glossop's private tenants, and none at all in some cases, is the best that is available.

Mr Levitt and Labour will do anything to deny the following connection. 3rd May 2007 Welfare Reform Act given Royal Assent, enables rollout of Local Housing Allowance nationally. 29th October 2007 DWP/Rent Service boundary changes take Glossop out of High Peak for benefit purposes and place it in Greater Manchester. April 2008 these new boundaries are used by the DWP/Rent Service in determining LHA payments. Rent service refuses to meet representatives from High Peak Borough Council. The effect was to reduce the benefit entitlement of every single adult and future adult in Glossop and Hadfield. Claimants were up to £30 per week worse off. (Mr Levitts own figure from press release 23rd April 2008). Mr Levitt entered the fight after the involvement of the Local Press and other agencies. I never considered him an ally, more a representative of the government that introduced this mess. History: LHA trial introduced Blackpool 2003 Gov gives assurance ‘no claimant would be worse off’. (Hansard 19th Nov 2003.) Charities report many problems. After Glossop boundary changes Mr Levitt belatedly asks DWP secretary of State James Purnell what effects changes will have on Glossop claimants., receives answer that 81% will have reduced entitlement.(Hansard 20th March 2008) . Mr Levitt has been a member of DWP Committee since 7th Nov 2007.

What purpose is there in a Labour Government that has so clearly failed the poor and the underprivileged when they have been in power for so long (High Peak along with neighbouring constituencies are still essentially deprived communities with poor schools, hospitals and a poor qualityof life) and yet, and yet what a contrast with our MP's who enjoy tax fee profits from taxpayer funded second properties, who enjoy refurnishing their homes at our expense, who enjoy spending thousands of taxpayer pounds on food and luxuries many of their constituents could only dream of buying. What a shower. What a self serving, arrogant, smug, uncomprehending shower of non entities we have voted to govern us.

Tom - Extract from my letter to Ray Collins - General Secretary... Thank you for your invitation to renew my membership subscription. Throughout my entire working life of 33 years in public service I have been a lifelong Labour supporter, subscribing to my Trades Union political affiliation as well as the Labour Party through individual membership. I am increasingly astonished at the daily revelations about the expenses of parliamentary members of the Labour party and have resolved to leave the party unless immediate, firm and decisive action is taken against those members who have abused their privileges. My expectation is that this would involve immediate exclusion from the PLP and deselection as a candidate at the next election. We need to clear these people out for the sake of the party but I am afraid to say that this single issue will result in a massive defeat for Labour at the Local and European elections. I sincerely hope we can regain this ground before the general election otherwise we will be condemned to a wilderness similar to what we experienced through 17 years of Thatcherite government. I know the majority of MPs deliver an excellent public service yet the issue of expenses is casting a cloud over the whole of Parliament, the Government and the Labour Party. Enough is enough. It is astonishing to hear the majority of MPs, who have been challenged by the media on these claims, have not had the humility to simply admit their failings. They choose instead to blame the so-called system and rules which allegedly have been unclear. Some of these MP’s are and have been my political heroes. What a nonesense they have made of my loyalty to the party! As a local authority employee every claim I make is scrutinised against a set of strict rules which requires expenses to have been necessarily and actually incurred in the performance of my duties. This does not include the fairy tales which some MPs have invented to save their skins. I would, quite rightly, expect to face disciplinary action and ultimately dismissal on grounds of misconduct if such claims against the public purse were found to be fraudulent and these self same politicians would be calling for me to be sacked. I expect the same code of conduct to be applied in this case. So I will await the independent review by Sir Christopher Kelly and the Committee on Standards in Public Life to inform my decision to renew my membership or not as the case may be. I would be obliged if you would copy this letter to the Prime Minister to appraise him of the views of a workaday Local Authority employee, Trades Unionist and Labour Party member at this moment in time and if Gordon Brown wishes to respond I would be more than happy to receive his comments.

First the Iraq War, then expences, to come ID cards-Who is the Green Party candidate

I am now at the point where i dont ever want to vote again as it doesnt matter want you say or offer you are in it for you and you alone. I have been self employed etc, and you make the whole expenses thing sound like your all amateurs and dont know what your doing with your own papaerwork so how can you run a country

Why on earth are you trying to defend MP'S expenses. We all know them to be wrong. You even say that the rules were inadequate, weren't enforced correctly nor did MP'S abide by them. Ok, so the next question is if MP'S thought this, why weren't they proposing changes every month and raising the issue with their constituents. Mr Levitt, you did neither of these, therefore you have no defense, and neither does any other MP, who has claimed. Also Mr Levitt, if you think you work hard,( i live and work within your constituency and i can't afford one house let alone two, i have to live in a static caravan) i urge you to do a job swap for a week with me! Is it now time we stop MP'S from being self employee and they become State employees paying tax under the PAYE system?

Will you issue as strong a condemnation of the proposed pension arrangements of the current speaker as you did of those in the banking industry.

'I want to see full disclosure of our detailed expenses' Then why haven't you already published your expenses, as some MPs did on their web sites many months ago? Why wait for everyone else? And why hasn't your voting record been strongly in favour of transparency? See: http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1637&dmp=996

What is perhaps most revealing about an MP's true attitude towards their expenses is whether they voted for or against the proposal to exempt themselves from the Freedom of Information Act!

Please see reply to Ronald Paul below

I find your aatempts to defend the indefensible quite breathtaking. this is the first time I have been driven to comment but I feel as if I have been taken for a ride by MPs who appear at best to have been content to let the status quo prevail - take the public for as much as you can! I too feel let down by this Government who will now give us at least ten years of Right wing, local service cutting, tax raising penury.

All MP's are going to be under scrutiny now; the media as always will be jumping on the bandwagon. There are some MP's that have been excessive in their expenses and that has to be remedied. As far as our family are concerned, you have always worked hard for us on a personal basis and we know you must be doing that for many people in the High Peak. Your working week will be over and above probably 'average'. It's difficult when people are banded together as 'the enemy'. We have experience of this - the media,especially, 'The Sun' brand all asylum seekers as lazy, cheating good for nothing low-life that are bleeding the country dry. Not true for the majority of cases. But there we have it. You have our support and thanks again for the recent work you did on our behalf.

You work an incredibly long working week of 60 hours per week for a paltry £64,766 plus £164,620 in expenses. How do you survive on this pittance? How do you manage to work so many hours per week? Mr Levitt you need to get out of your ivory tower and get in the real world, the vast majority of your constituents work much longer hours in significantly worse working conditions than you do for much, much, much less than you are paid from our hard earned taxes. You must appreciate that 99% of your constituents, you remember those, the people who you were elected to fairly represent, would kill for a salary like that and the life style you have BEEN GIVEN by the voters. Stop defending the indefensible. Humility goes a long way as does remorse.

In the interests of openness and transparency I do not reply to anonymous postings

You accepted my democtratic right to anonimity when I voted for you so I fail to see why my anonimity affects your ability to reply to my points. However I can see how you highly you value openness and transparency so my name is Amanda Watson. Now I can see no reason why you should not answer my concerns as your constituent.

What difference does my name make. I am a High Peak constituent and you were elected to represent me. Stop avoiding the issues.

I cannot really accept your word "fallible" - MPs are "greedy" and feel somehow entitled to perks. I particularly think Labour MPs should think more about the hardship that the lowest-paid in society have always endured. Paying back money is actually admitting that you were in the wrong. When a poor citizen steals to help her starving kids she could be sent to prison for failure to pay fines - ie she is punished. I am not happy with the ethics of all this; I certainly think MPs' behaviour has shown moral laxity. Just read M Bunting on "Age of Entitlement" in Guardian 18 May, and say "Hear hear".

All MPs are fallible; some MPs are greedy. I agree that where criminal acts have occured they should be punished; where rules have been broken they should be disciplined; and where further changes to the rules are required they should made, though there have already been several changes since the years for which expenses have been published.

Whilst appreciating your openness in this latest post, I was rather annoyed by the initial tone taken last week; both via this forum and in the weekly Advertiser column. You went on the attack, not at MP expenses claims, but at the media who dared to publish them. This would not have been as bad until one realises you have voted consistently to block the full publication of these expenses claims in previous Commons debates. It really sticks in the craw, especially as it adds more ammunition to the Tories armoury. After fighting for years to get rid of them through the 80's and 90's; then voting to keep you in power, I now face the inevitable return to Right Wing politics. It all rather demeans and deflects the +ve aspects of politicians duties and I worry for the future of true democratic representation. This is the most disappointing aspect of it all. Ronnie Paul

I have never voted to hide MP expenses claims and I support their full pubication to FoI standards, something which was due to happen next month for the first time ever. As they will be to FoI standards there will be no benefit (but a significant expense to the public purse) for the same requests to be processed for individuals. I did vote against allowing private correspondence in which MPs write to third parties about constituents to be published, when there was a risk that this might happen. People often talk to me about their mental health, financial or marital problems and even possible criminal activity which has to remain confidential.

Can you please explain your voting record, for those who are less experienced than you in complicated Parliamentary procedure? You said "I have never voted to hide MP expenses claims...", yet the record seems to show that you were not strongly in favour of transparency (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1637&dmp=996). You also said "I did vote against allowing private correspondence in which MPs write to third parties about constituents to be published, when there was a risk that this might happen.", but you didn't say that you were absent for the crucial vote (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2007-04-20&number=95&mpn=Tom_Levitt&mpc=High_Peak&house=commons). I hope you'll continue to use your blog to give full answers to High Peak's voters, and that you'll clarify any misunderstandings in my reading of your voting record.

I haven't read the breakdown of your expenses yet but I understand that you employ your wife as your Parliamentary Assistant.Is she the best person you could have got for the job or is this nepotism? Also-considering the widespread and blatant nature of the abuse of the expenses system,can you account for why none of the 646 MP's in Parliament never considered blowing the whistle on this scandal-and since you are presenting yourself as largely innocent of any abuse why did YOU not consider this?

Teresa has worked for me for all 12 years, currently on 3 days/week on the approved Parliamentary Assistant scale. She runs my web site and my London office where she works as PA and admin assistant. MPs find that spouses provide the loyalty, willingness to work additional and antisocial hours and general support and insight that is difficult to find elsewhere and we appreciate it immensely

Dear Mr Levitt, As you can imagine, I am somewhat dismayed by the "expenses" situation. I know I am not alone - you are more than likely aware of this too. I saw the recent episode of "Question Time", along with what I believe was a record breaking audience, to witness Margaret Beckitt hopefully destroy her career. I say hopefully, as I do not believe that anyone that arrogant or ignorant of the publics feeling should be allowed to act on their behalf. I am 40 years old, & currently employed by a company whom I have to submit monthly expenses to. If I attempted to claim some of the things that have been recently publically aired that your colleagues in Westminster have, I would be sacked. I always believe that you should never do anything which you would not want the "Daily Mail" to know about & report - it seems to me that now this is an absolute certainty for most MPs, they are upset. Rules, guidelines & the like may not have been broken, but it seems to me that what was read out of the extract for expenses guidlines on Question Time, was clear enough in it's principles & direction. How they have been interpreted & acted upon is, I believe, dishonest & immoral. I am traditionally what is known as a floating voter - I have no party allegiance, but vote based on my current circumstances. I currently do not know who to vote for - this is a first for me. I am due to become a father for the first time in 8 weeks to twins- one of the first things I can remember my parents teaching me is honesty, closely followed by a sense of right & wrong. I too will be seeking to teach my children that. However, I am troubled that they will be coming into a world, where persons who have a sense of responsibility, who have been voted in by other people, to make decisions on their behalf whilst effectively being paid by them, are at heart dishonest. How should I act? Do I tell them to distrust politicians? Should I try & get them interested in politics, knowing that they have a sense of right & wrong, taught to them by me, in the hope that they could do something about the obvious lack of sense of morality & lack of respect for others exhibited by some of your colleagues. My big fear is that in the elections coming up, parties such as the BNP will be voted in, following an attempt to "teach the 3 big parties a lesson" by the voting public. I can only hope this does not happen, as I find them abhorrent - more so than financial dishonesty, as this party has just a thin veil covering their true beliefs. So, to the point of this message - I would like your assurance that no expenses "misdemeanours" are likely to come our way into the public domain from you - if you can promise me this, I will continue to consider supporting Labour. If you can't (& I don't expect you to admit to any misdemeanours either on this message reply, or via my e-mail address, so don't worry!), then I'll vote elsewhere, Right at the moment, I'm guessing you could do with all the support you can muster, for the reason I gave above. Think hard about your reply, because if you're wrong, & evidence of what I would describe as illegitimate expenses come to light (regardless of guidelines or what your colleagues do - I'm talking the "Daily Mail" factor & what is ethically & morally right)I need to tell my children a completely different lesson in life, from the one I'd like to tell them. I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Mr Tabb, I can give you the assurance you are seeking. All the allegations against me have been answered in the public domain and explained. I am not expecting any more! As I have said elsewhere, whilst not claiming to be perfect, as a former member of the Commons Standards committee, I have always been careful with public money.