Wikipedia

Talk:Andy Reed (politician)

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Untitled

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I do not really understand why we have in the background section about his early life and then in the personal life section mention his adoption at the age of three months. I believe this should be combined into one paragraph and I propose that the paragraph should be in the background section. Any objections? --Stefanjcarney (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Structure?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The introduction appears much too short. The longest section, expenses seems disproportionately large considering it merited only 4 lines in the Telegraph and didn't involve "flipping". It doesn't allow me to compare his expenses with other MPs, nor does it tell me how accessible he is to his constituents etc. and what he does in Parliament. In short, it doesn't allow me to guage value for money. Anyone disagree? I'll try and expand existing sections -with proper references, and hopefully we'll have a more balanced article JRPG (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Expenses Claim.

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Having read the Telegraph and other sources carefully, it seems that

  • He overclaimed for £847 -a mistake which any self respecting accounting system should have picked up and corrected but not an indication of fraud.
  • He appears to have mis-stated the cost of his second home on his website but this cost is ranked 266 i.e. nothing special.
  • He doesn't regard the expenses issue as worth a lot of time. MPs are busy people,responsible for an estimated £671B of HM Treasury expenditure and whilst rules needed to be established, MPs expenses are a tiny fraction of government costs.

I don't think the cost of telephones or discusions on boilers is worth including though the references can be left. Anyone disagree? JRPG (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Simplification

edit

I note that Stephen Dorrell and Edward Garnier were both asked to repay rather more than Reed i.e. £1530 and £1221 respectively but have no section on expenses. Like Reed, neither was accused of flipping. This suggests most editors regard the sums involved as a simple mistake by accountants and not worthy of inclusion, a view I share. JRPG (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've also removed the main article link as Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Main article link says

'If the topic of a section is also covered in a dedicated article, then this should be marked by inserting

Main article: Article name

directly beneath the section heading'

Neither Reed nor fees office errors are mentioned in the expenses scandal and it would be inappropriate to suggest they are. JRPG (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Expenses Claim:Libellous material. NPOV

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The expenses claim appears to me to be libellous.

  • The paper revealed that Reed had claimed thousands of pounds for home entertainment equipment. The Loughborough Echo revealed nothing of the sort. The cost of the equipment was under £1000.
  • The Legg Report, published on 4 February 2010, revealed that Reed was asked to repay £891.48 of overclaimed expenses. No! The Fees office mistakenly paid the expenses twice.
  • when the Daily Telegraph obtained copies of MPs' expense claims they found a significant discrepancy in Reed's mortgage interest claims for his second home in Westminster. Reed's website stated that he claimed around £450 a month from taxpayers for mortgage interest on his Westminster home but the Telegraph's investigation discovered that his actual submitted claims were for between £727 and £1,180 a month

There is no discrepancy. Reed claimed £490 a month on the mortgage, £105 a month for utilities including gas, electricity and water rates, £62 a month on council tax, there is a service charge of £450 per quarter, according to the Loughborough Echo. All unfortunately part of the cost of living in the centre of a very expensive city. JRPG (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll amend this section and shorten it, ASAP and I hope everyone agrees.


JRPG - this material is not libellous. (1) The Echo revealed Reed had spent £1,000+ on home entertainment equipment. (2) The fees office DID order Reed to repay money - there is no question about this. Read the Legg report! (3) The Telegraph clearly stated they found a discrepancy!

This material should not be blanked in the way you suggest and to do so would affect the NPOV. Lboids (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply


Lboids,
Firstly thanks for your views and I appreciate the time and effort you must have spent on this. Theyworkfor you is a reliable source but frankly if his expenses and costs are in the middle order then the request to pay the £891,not yet paid is about the only thing 'notable'. Of course I included that but we don't want a list of everyday household items in an encyclopedia. I also think AR's public debate on boilers repairs wasn't very clever and its ridiculous for a highly paid MP to waste time saving £30 bargain hunting so I missed those bits out too.

Re Max Hunt. I know he works/has worked on immigration issues as a part time constituency worker. This is covered I believe by staff costs and really isn't notable.

Re libel, this is an area which I have some some knowledge, hence my concern. A good quality phone is a vital piece of office equipment not entertainment. "Reed had claimed thousands of pounds for home entertainment equipment". Sorry but we're not talking several thousand pounds here so this appears at least a misleading statement even though the source is clear. Libel apart, is it noteworthy compared to other MPs?
On a general point, a second home in London is expensive and the main criticism has been of MPs who flipped mortgages or improved homes just before moving. That would be noteworthy but Reed was at his present address for 11 years and hasn't been accused of that. His expenses are still way below the maximum allowance under new rules.

For the record, I've worked in Loughborough, ironically on gas boiler software. I've previously had meetings with 4 Labour and 3 Tory East Midland MPs, they all seem decent people, and all helped me -and their constituents. My priority is to give a fair description of policies and work to everyone including now of course to potential voters in this key marginal. If after reading this, you revert then I intend to ask for an urgent NPOV/BLP check. If you want to expand constituency work/views, fox hunting is probably the most controversial issue not covered, particularly as he lives in Quorn. I will attempt to get a photo and write something about tax. You may also want to write some more about the Loughborough constituency. Please also feel free to email me.
BTW, I note you seem to use quotes from Stephen Hodgson's blog. Do you have any quotes reported in newspapers from Nikki Morgan, the Loughborough PPCC on expenses? That of course might be notable.

You may also want to look at Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:No original research,Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability. I haven't removed anything that is both notable and reliable.

Regards JRPG (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Partly Loyalty.

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm in the process of providing more info on policies + good links and I'll increase the section on Iraq, Identity cards follows the party line. I don't think the reader is interested in seeing a typo. JRPG (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andy Reed (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Andy Reed (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Andy Reed (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andy_Reed_(politician)&oldid=1203711123"