2 years on....

.... and what has changed?

Djanogly was re-elected. Despite living in London and prominent in the MP's expenses scandal, the voters of the Huntingdon constituency re-elected Djanogly therefore forgiving him for his part in this scandal. Djanogly went onto become an Under secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice. This is a third rung on the Ministerial ladder with Minister of State above him and Secretary of State at the top. Djanogly became a bit of a lightning rod scandal. There was his spying on local Conservative members and his relationship with his brother-in-law. The spying was internal. The brother-in-law was really a non-story.

Useless Town Council Planning Committee. This has carried on being useless and a sheer waste of money. The new Conservative administration on the Town Council has carried with this sheer waste of money. The only real reason for this is the Town Councillors want to pontificate on the merits of planning applications without any real training or idea of what they are doing.

Cllr Ablewhite is new District Council Leader. Despite being party to costing the District Council £5,000 over a planning decision in St Ives, the District Council Conservatives deemed Cllr Ablewhite worthy of their leadership. Cllr Ian Bates stood down at from the leadership after the abortive merger talks with East Cambridgeshire and Fenland District Councils fell down.

Cinema progresses. The idea to squeeze the cinema into a totally inappropriate site continues. Turnstone Estates were given preferred status and went ahead and ripped the Development Brief to shreds. As the land owners HDC and SNTC must have been privy to these changes yet didn't say a thing. So much for transparency.

Rough waters for the Outdoor Swimming Pool. Having done a deal with McCarthy and Stone, rumour has it the SNTC/SNSPT has reneged on this deal. Whilst selling the land and using the proceeds to build a new swimming pool on other land made sense, unless SNTC/SNSPT have found a source of money it will make no sense to rebuild the swimming pool on the old site.

HCCA. The slow downfall of this once proud Conservative Association continues with HCCA running out of money.

Council Tax. HDC has, for many years, used reserves to keep Council Tax down. Combined with the previous Labour Government who used the threat of capping to keep the District Council tax rises down. Capping is due to end with a new referendum rules to ensure any excessive Council Tax rises are voted on by the electorate beforehand.

New Homes Bonus nicked. This becomes a large amount of money for HDC. According to the Coalition Government this money is for the communities which are accepting new housing developments. HDC is supposed to consult the locals over the use of this money. Think about £8000 a property and 5000 properties. £40 million would make a difference to St Neots.

Riverside Car Park. This was a joint approach that ended up as a pantomime. As the basic decision was correct as either the user pays or the Council Tax payer (and I prefer the user pays) this now looks to be revisited. The Liberal Democrats made hay over this. The St Neots Conservatives are against but voted for the budget. This issue went back and forth until it was decided by Cabinet and then Council make this a pay car park.

Councillors. Over the two years I've looked at Councillor attendances. Some are good. Some were bad. On Town Councillor did good by resigning. Mandy Thomas just didn't turn up or only to one minor meeting in 6 months. The dearth of candidates to be Councillors was also highlighted before the last elections. On one good note, Carl Jones stood as an Independent and won the Town Council East seat.

CPALC. It looks as though CPALC gave the Town Council Quality Status to SNTC with too much trouble. Though how they passed many of the tests didn't stand up to scrutiny. Anyway SNTC paid their sub and CPALC seems happy the Quality Town Status means absolutely nothing.

The Liberal Democrats. These have been a big disappointment. With Martin Land as both Agent and Parliamentary Candidate this was going to go wrong. The Conservatives are "closet racists and homophobes" quote did damage. Also if that is how Martin thinks the Liberal Democrats are destined to lose and lose again.

Gordon Thorpe. It is a pity that Gordon has gone. Although he called me the "Most Hated Man in St Neots" I hold no grudges against him. I did warn him at the time that Harrsion and Jennings were fighting hard for Eaton Socon and Gordon needed to get out and campaign. Gordon didn't take my advice and, I was informed, turned up about a week before the campaign finished to campaign. Miles too late.

Have I given up on the blog? Well no. But there will be fewer blog entries as time goes on. Of course if SNTC decides to alter the Priory Centre.......

What has Djanogly actually done wrong?

Our MP, Jonathan Djanogly, seems to be a bit of a lightning rod. Controversy over his expenses and the questions he didn't answer. Controversy over spying on fellow Conservative members also did him harm. In this latest controversy I don't see what Djanogly has done wrong.

His declared shareholdings, woodland and his membership of the Djanogly partnership at Lloyds have been put into a blind trust. This change should have been declared earlier but these interests have already been declared so this is rather a red herring.

What seems to be the trouble is over his brother-in-law who owns several companies which technically Djanogly had oversight. Nothing untoward has been discovered in the sense that it hasn't been found that Djanogly has taken decisions about these firms. There is also trouble over his teenage children holding shareholdings in a couple of his brother-in-law firms. This is slightly more difficult because Djanogly, being a parent, should have known about these.

But at what point should a shareholding become an actual interest. If what seems to be the argument that he should have declared these shareholdings by his teenage children then I have to disagree unless he is a signature to these shareholdings.

The argument seems to be that Djanogly should not have oversight of companies dealing with legal claims because his brother-in-law owns a couple. Does this mean he shouldn't have oversight? The argument continues that because his brother-in-law businesses that Djanogly should not be making policy over this area. I believe Djanogly should carry on.

The basic problem I have will this so-called scandal is there is nothing inherently wrong. If we are going to go down the road that a relative or friend have businesses or interests this means that a Under Secretary of State or any Government Minister cannot make policy where relatives or friends could be involved.

For example: Djanogly is a solicitor. Therefore Djanogly shouldn't make policy about lawyers because some of his friend are lawyers.

My example is in planning. Just because friends and relatives can make planning applications doesn't mean Councillors cannot decide planning applications. Just when a planning application comes up from a friend or relative these Councillors should declare an interest and withdraw from the decision. This must be the case for Government.

It seems that the detractors want Government Ministers to be "nobby nomates" with no family, friends or interests to take all the decisions in Government. 

If it was found that Djanogly had changed policy or had made decisions or even influenced any change in policy or decisions for the sole benefit of his brother-in-law that would be wrong. No such evidence has been produced. If evidence were produced then this would change the situation.

I'm no fan of Djanogly. I'd rather have him go for something he has done wrong and not for something which has been made up.


The problems for Djanogly goes back to his expenses scandal. The press and interest groups will dig around for something that seems wrong. Whilst the electorate has forgiven Djanogly over his expenses, because he was re-elected, this means he is still a lightning conductor over anything that in some peoples minds is wrong.

The granny wars over the cinema. Which one will Djanogly support?

On the Hunts Post website there is an article about two grannies at war over the Cinema project. Mrs Cooke against and Mrs Winters for.

Both Mrs Cooke and Mrs Winters are meeting with Huntingdon MP Jonathan Djanogly on Friday to discuss the project, before the application goes before HDC later this year.

What has Djaonogly got to do with this? He is the MP but this is a matter for the Councils and not him. All he can do is listen and monitor the development.

On Djanogly's website there is a picture of Djanogly and Cllr Barry Chapman looking at the plans for the site.

They look like they are at the back of Cressener House which isn't in the proposals. From the looks of this Djanogly is supporting the cinema development.

As Cllr Barry Chapman says:


'We are very pleased by Mr Djanogly's interest in the project which already has the support of Town, District and County Councillors. Huntingdonshire District Council is currently updating its plans for the Huntingdon Street site and we hope these will reflect the view of St Neots residents who wish to see a cinema here.'

With most of the St Neots representatives already on board it seems extremely likely to go ahead.

It seems likely that Djanogly should come down on the side of the cinema project having had his picture taken at the site with the plans. But will we end up with another case of fence sitting yet again? Yes it will.

Is Djanogly Dim but Nice?

I have to wonder about Jonathan Djanogly, Under Secretary of State in charge of Legal Aid and our MP to boot. As pointed out by Private Eye he actually turned up at protest about the cuts he is instituting.

So is Djanogly for the cuts or against? Or did he think "Sound Off For Justice" was something different?

Djanogly believes CAB has a dozen or more funding streams?

Our MP, Jonathan Djanogly, who is an under-secretary for state for Justice was answering questions to the Justice Committee in its inquiry into Access for Justice.

In his evidence our MP, Jonathan Djanogly, said:

At 11:34:15 "Most of CAB's money comes from local government.......although the average CAB will have about a dozen or more funding streams."

This is news to the Huntingdonshire CAB. In their 2009/10 Accounts they stated:

Djanogly wants organisations such as the CAB to run a mediation service whilst his Conservative colleagues at Huntingdonshire District Council are cutting their funding to the Citizens Advice Bureau. Well what do expect from our MP who lives at his main home in Westminster.

“Going green” in Westminster and Huntingdon

“Going green” in Westminster and Huntingdon is an article about the Green House in Huntingdon. When I read the headline I thought this was to do about Djanogly's main home in Westminster and his weekend retreat in Alconbury. I was wrong. The article is about Djanogly being appointed "Environmental Champion" for the Ministry of Justice. In the article it states: "This scheme is part of our determination, led by the PM, that Ministers should lead the way for the public sector to set an example in carbon reduction."

The way I read this is Ministers (Djanogly is an Under Secretary of State - lowest on the paid Ministerial rung) should lead the way. I take this to be personally and in public life.

This made me think about Djanogly and his claims on the public purse for his house in Alconbury and other ways he could reduce his carbon emissions.

Firstly, I was drawn to the cost of his two houses. Djanogly has a rather large house in Westminster and one in Alconbury. Working in London, not that far from his offices I thought he would be better off ditching his Alconbury house.

Secondly, there are the expenses of running this second house. The electricity and gas costs for 2008/09 are known as Djanogly claimed these and they have been published. Will Djanogly be leading the way by cutting down on his energy costs at his Alconbury home? He couldn't live at both houses at the same time but he claimed for the expense at living at one house whilst the other was empty.

Thirdly, Djanogly could always use public transport to get his family from their Westminster home to Alconbury and back again by train and bus. Of course no buses run through Alconbury on a Sunday. So Djanogly couldn't return to start work on Monday morning. A non-goer there.

I just feel it is rather ironic that our MP commuting between 2 large houses by car has yet to show anything about how he would change his life to cut his carbon emissions. As "Environmental Champion" he should lead by making personal cuts. At the moment it is everyone else and not Djanogly who is taking the lead.

Djanogly's Top Ten

I feel Djanogly should do Top Ten of his favourite tunes. These are my suggestions:

1 - Paranoid - Black Sabbath
2 - Every breathe you take - Police
3 - Private Investigations - Dire Straits
4 - Somebody's Watching Me - Rockwell
5 - The Theme from The Rockford Files - Mike Post
6 - Heard you watching me - Cosmo
7 -
8 - The Theme from Magnum Private Investigator
9 - Watching the Detectives - Elvis Costello
10 - Watching You, Watching Me - David Grant

------------------------------------

I saw the following in the recent issue of Private Eye.

Comment in Hunts Post

Whilst I do enjoy some of the leader comments I have to say this is a very disjointed. What is left out of this Comment is a critical analysis of Djanogly's actions. Instead this a banner waving pro-Djanogly comment which whitewashes what he did.

Lest we forget, Djanogly spent most of his time as a MP as a lawyer. He claimed for a cleaner and for a gardener - even though his London home has a very small garden. Although he paid back £25,000 he did claim the money in the first place!


Comment also asserts that Senior Tories deny having spoken to the Djanoglys' sleuths. As Hunts Post points out "any fool can find someone to describe someone else as "lazy", incompetent or ineffective". How does the Hunts Post know this? Is this the standard of journalism that exists at Hunts Post? Obviously it is!

If the private detectives were calling the wrong people that Djanogly didn't specify then they weren't doing their jobs properly. Djanogly should look for his money back!

Whilst Djanogly did good work over HLS, how long can he live on these laurels? The problem is Djanogly is out of touch with the local party. What is important to the Huntingdon Constituency is we have an MP in touch with local concerns and doing what is best for the constituency. Much of this is done by the employees and interns.

In hindsight the way Djanogly could have stopped all these problems was not to claim these expenses for a job he does part-time. All Djanoglys' problems are of his own creation. Blaming The Daily Telegraph for all these faults is deflecting the blame from the only person to blame for his woes and that person is Djanogly!

What does Tricky Dicky and Tricky Jonny have in common?

Answer:

Something wrong at HCCA

The news that Huntingdon Constituency Conservative Association is not going to hold a special meeting over the revelations that Djanogly was employing private investigators to snoop on party members is wrong. There is obviously a schism between Djanogly and the rest of HCCA. This needs to be addressed. Burying this story isn't the answer. Djanogly needs a vibrant association and the association needs a vibrant MP. At the moment there seems to be neither.

The thing about political associations is many times non-political people get the power structure wrong. Back in the olden days each Conservative Association was very autonomous and in a General Meeting of the Association was supreme. They could select and de-select candidates and MPs at will. This was a frustration to John Major who wanted to get rid of Neil Hamilton. William Hague started the change of balance giving the party leader the ability to effectively sack MPs and candidates.

For all the constitutional changes the basic political structure of the Conservatives remains the same. The General Meeting of The Association is still the font of power. It elects the President, Chairman, Deputy Chairmen, Treasurer and other positions. It delegates authority to the Chairman, Management Committee and Executive Council. It appoints Patrons and, importantly, its parliamentary candidate and can appoint a Political Agent.

The point of all this is the political agent works for the association not the MP or Parliamentary candidate. The Association works to ensure the constituency returns a Conservative MP. To this end the MP is a product of the Association. The Agent is an employee/contractor of the Association not the MP. The MP doesn't run or own the association nor the Agent. The current Agent, Simon Burton, was an employee of Jonathan Djanogly. So does Simon put the Association first or Djanogly?

As reported in The Daily Telegraph, Djanogly served notice on the former Agent, Sir Peter Brown, not to tell anyone about his expenses claims. Resorting to the law and threats doesn't help in getting a working relationship between members.

By ruling out an Extraordinary General Meeting, the HCCA leadership is not allowing the local Conservative members a chance to have their say on this matter. Better to keep their heads down and hope the Boundary Commission for England effectively does their job for them.

Djanogly and his non-apology

"I am sorry if some people judge that I made a mistake". Now is that an actual apology? Let me de-construct this sentence. Firstly Djanogly is sorry. Of course Djanogly is sorry but what for? Djanogly is sorry "...if some people judge I made a mistake." So Djanogly is not apologising for instructing private detectives. Nor is Djanogly apologising for spying on Conservative Party members and others.

In other words Djanogly is only apologising IF some people think he should. Otherwise he isn't.

This is a not an apology at all.


Djanogly's statement

Should Djanogly resign?

The use of private detectives by Djanogly to snoop on fellow Conservatives members is extraordinary. Essentially this is an internal matter for the Huntingdon Constituency Conservative Association for whom Djanogly is their parliamentary candidate.

Don't expect any serious move to deselect Djanogly. With a former Djanogly employee (Simon Burton) in as Association Agent unless the Chairman (Martin Stephenson)/Management Committee/Executive Council does something this will all be brushed under the carpet with all the other problems.

What has emerged is the distrust between Conservative members and their MP. I pointed out a while back that Djanogly was effectively out of the loop on local issues. To get back into the loop he had to hire private investigators to find out information about what Conservative supporters are thinking and saying.

Either HCCA takes control of the situation or the association should be renamed "The Jonathan Djanogly Conservative Association".

Should Djanogly resign? I don't see this on its own as a resigning issue whether at Government or Parliamentary level. This is effectively an internal matter between Conservatives. The local Conservative Association should take charge of the situation. There isn't that much a Conservative Association can do. They could hold an Extraordinary General Meeting and vote on a motion of no confidence.

With the Boundary Commission for England saying all seats will be up for change it could be likely Djanogly could be a casualty of the cut in the number of MPs. For HCCA to rely on this would be a mistake. HCCA needs to take a stand rather than let Djanogly rule the association.

Djanogly snoops on own supporters!

I was going to leave Djanogly and his expenses troubles to one side as he was re-elected by the people of the Huntingdon constituency. In my view much of the information about his expenses and conduct were in the public domain and still Djanogly was re-elected. So what had gone on before, that we all knew about, was behind us and really couldn't be used as the people have spoken.


The new evidence, in The Daily Telegraph, that Djanogly hired private detectives raises new questions on Djanogly's way of doing things and his suitability as our MP. This rakes up much of the past and re-opens what was closed. It also shows how the Liberal Democrats flunked it with with Martin Land.

I have to wonder whether the Conservative Association knew he had hired private detectives to investigate members of the constituency association they would have kept him as candidate!

On the BBC website Djanogly says: "I instructed a firm of private investigators to try to find out the source of these stories because I was extremely upset that my private family life had been invaded.". Your private life was invaded because you claimed £13,962 in public money for a cleaner who worked Friday, Saturday and Sunday at  your secondary home in Alconbury. Your Alconbury home must have got very dirty at the weekends!

What I also found interesting in The Daily Telegraph article is the following:

 ". . . please be on notice that I will defend my reputation through the courts if necessary."

Djanogly also said roughly the same about the animal rights election leaflet. Nothing heard since!

"Mr Djanogly was, perhaps, aware of rumblings of discontent in his constituency, where some Tories were unhappy with the job he was doing and with the fact that he had carried on working as a lawyer."

"The other problem is his [Djanogly’s] wife who is quite rude and openly expresses her lack of interest in the Conservative Association and has been known to go to bed in the middle of dinner parties. This does not go down well in a traditional Tory constituency like Huntingdon."

"Sir Peter “confirmed he had resigned over the expenses scandal” rather than for health reasons, as Mr Djanogly had claimed at the time, while Mr Holley refused to say anything."

"They (the conspirators) claim that if Peter Down(e)s, the respected leader of the Liberal Democrats on the council, stood against you in the general election, it would be a close call."
The Liberal Democrats put up multiple Political Agent Martin Land instead.


Lets get this into perspective. Djanogly is the candidate of the Association. The Conservative Association is paramount. It looks to me that Djanogly thinks he is the Association and he is paramount. This is wrong! Has Djanogly been good for the Huntingdon Conservative Association? I think not!


The problem with all this is there anyone else who Djanogly sent Private Detectives to investigate? Can we believe his answer?

Fathers to protest at MP's Home

St Neots News and Crier - 10/06/2010

I hope Djanogly is there! The protesters are more likely to find him at his London home than in Alconbury.

Your in Government!

I see Djanogly is asking FCC questions over the small rise in Car Park charges at St Neots Railway Station. Up from £6.50 to £6.75. I notice the rise in Car Park charges at Riverside or Cambridge Street imposed by Conservative controlled HDC hasn't been raised as an issue with HDC. Obviously, as FCC hasn't got anything to do with the Conservatives this causes Djanogly very few problems. On the other hand the car parks charges means he will have to talk with his Conservative colleagues.

The question behind all this is why Djanogly is only questioning FCC? Whether Djanogly likes it or not, he is in Government which is ultimately in charge of the railways. So whilst asking FCC, why isn't Djanogly phoning up his colleagues at the Ministry of Transport and ask them what they can do?

Taxpayer back paying for Djanogly website?

I see the banner of Djanogly's website has changed. Does this mean the taxpayer is back paying for the website after the brief election campaign? I feel Djanogly should be more transparent about his expenses! Others have already posted their expenses on their Conservatives.com webpage. Why is Djanogly so tardy?

Another look at the Huntingdon General Election result

Party	Candidate	2010 Vote	Notional 2005 Vote	+/-	2010 %	Notional 2005 %	+/-
Conservative	Jonathan Djanogly	26516	26646	-130	48.9	50.8	-1.9
Liberal Democrat	Martin Land	15697	13799	+1898	28.9	26.3	+2.6
Labour	Anthea Cox	5982	9821	-3839	11.0	18.7	-7.7
UKIP	Ian Curtis	3258	2152	+1106	6.0	4.1	+1.9
Green	John Clare	652	0	+652		0	+1.2
APP	Carrie Holliman	181	0	+181		0	+0.3
Independent	Jonathan Salt	1432	0	+1432		0	+2.6
OMRLP	Lord Toby Jug	548	0	+548		0	+1.0
Turnout		54266	52418		65.1	62.5
Majority		10819	12847	-2028		24.5

I thought I would take another look at the final result of the General Election. I'll go through each of the top three parties.
The Conservatives: The Djanogly vote held up extremely well. Far better than I expected. His percentage dropped slightly by 1.9%. In comparison to other seats surrounding Huntingdon the Conservative increases are:North West Cambridgeshire: +4.8% North East Cambridgeshire: +4.6%South Cambridgeshire: +2.7%North East Bedfordshire: +5.9%Djanogly's -1.9% is not good, but not a killer. Having been returned this represents an end to his expenses' problems.
The Liberal Democrats: Martin Land made some progress but not that much. All the hype over the leadership debates didn't materialise. The 2.6% increase doesn't seem much. In comparison:North West Cambridgeshire: -1.8% North East Cambridgeshire: +3.0%South Cambridgeshire: +4.7%North East Bedfordshire: +0.9%
The Martin Land campaign was mainly aimed at attracting Labour supporters. Obviously, from the result, this is what he achieved. Adding 2.6% to this total is minor and is mid-range of what was achieved from surrounding constituencies. 
Throughout this campaign I though Martin Land was aiming at the wrong people if he wanted to win! Martin Land had a go at me. He said:
"I’m told that somebody who knows far more about politics than me thinks that my being Agent for some of my colleagues and for our Disttrict Candidates compromises my ability to stand for Parliament. But, you see, it’s my job. And like most (though not all) candidates in this election, I have to earn my keep. Actually, when you have 37 years of campaigning behind you, these tasks are relatively routine and don’t prevent me from doing a very serious job as a parliamentary candidate as a some people will perhaps be surprised to see on May 7th."
At 2.6% this wasn't a very good job. The anti-conservative theme is something Martin Land has longed believed. In a blog Martin said:
"that the Tories remain a coalition between the blatantly self-interested, closet racists, and homophobes.."

I know Eynesbury was a local election campaign but Steve van de Kerkhove ran a pretty much non attack campaign which didn't call for Labour support. He did very well with an 8.7% increase.

Whilst bombarded with literature, the Liberal Democrats ran a lack lustre campaign and may very well have been campaigning elsewhere. 

Labour: This was always going to be a bad campaign for Labour. Anthea did quite well by only allowing the vote to drop by 7.7% instead of 11%. Not good, but could have been worse. 

Just rewards for expenses claim?

St Neots News and Crier - 03/06/2010

Just reward for expenses claim? - Mr P Duncan rants on about how the HCCA deemed him fit to represent us and then goes on about Djanoglys' expenses claims.

I feel this is wrong and misses the big point. The electors of the Huntingdon constituency returned Djanogly to Parliament. Fully knowing his problem with expenses. That is the result. The electors have spoken.

Djanogly is still bad for HCCA!

With the recent publication of the local accounting units of the Conservative Party, I thought I would look to see how badly HCCA was damaged by Djanogly.

Starting with Membership. This was down by 58 full members. There was an increase of Out of Constituency members. This rose by 15 and for all we may know this could have been previous members or friends of Djanogly. 

The is a large discrepancy over Club members. In the 2008 accounts this was shown as 195 up from 52. In the 2009 accounts this number has changed from 195 to just 4 and this has fallen to just 2. Something wrong here! I'll blog on this later.

Income and Expenditure.
The net loss was £8,086. In the previous year there was a £2,085 surplus. The is a downward movement of £10,171. The main reason for this fall was a dramatic loss of income of £19,825.

Subscriptions were down by just £1,238. As most of these are taken at the beginning of the year this is expected. 2010 accounts will be more reflective of what happened. Fundraising is a massive £13,911 down. Branches were down by £1,894. Donations were down by £2,752.

What helped is a cut back on expenditure. With a drop of fundraising, this led to less cost of £9,311. Less political activity meant a cut of £2,789. Staff expenditure increased by £1,178. Photocopying increased by £3,552. Other cuts in expenditure saved £3,500.

Comparing with other Conservative Associations I find:

North East Cambridgeshire: No real loss year on year. -12 members.
North West Cambridgeshire: Down by £2,000 year on year. -82 members.
South Cambridgeshire: Upped their Subs and donations by £13,000. -2 members.
Peterborough: Donations slightly up. -98 members.

I conclude the Conservative Association is doing badly with Djanogly as MP. A Conservative MP does need a strong Conservative Association behind him. HCCA is year on year is getting weaker and weaker.

-----------

I will point out these are the only accounts published by any local party. I would like to see Labour, Liberal Democrats and other local party accounts publish their account. These are kept secret. 

Has Jonathan Djanogly got a Government job? The answer so far is NO! This may be down to the Liberal Democrats in the coalition and having to find jobs for them. I feel this is part of the answer. The other part is Djanogly and his expenses problems have caused him problems. Chris Grayling got demoted from the Shadow Cabinet to a junior role. Djanogly couldn't be demoted any further than being on the backbenches. 

Having given up is £300,000 pa solicitor partnership for a job in Government, he hasn't got the job. This is a rebuff. But Djanogly has only got himself to blame. I believe if Djanogly had actually held a public meeting over his expenses claims he would have gone up in most peoples estimations.

Update: Djanogly is on the lowest paid rung of the ladder and has been appoint as an Under Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice.