Blogger “Guido” has launched an attack on Tom Watson.

Tim has already had a good look at “Guido’s” post, incluing asking some questions regarding Tom Watson’s expenses, but let’s just expand slightly on the way Paul Staines has done his maths:

Last year Watson pocketed his £60,000 salary and his parliamentary expenses amounted to £150,000-plus – bringing his total package to £211,000 - making him the 73rd highest claiming MP out of 646 MPs. Quite an achievement for an MP not claiming for travel to and from Scotland. He of course employs his wife Siobhan at the public’s expense, his brother, Dan, is constituency director to Euro MP Michael Cashman, Dan Watson’s wife, Joanna, has no fewer than three jobs.

Like her husband, she also works for Mr Cashman and for Wolverhampton Labour MP Pat McFadden, yet still finds time to be a Labour councillor in Sandwell. Amy Watson, cousin of Tom and Dan, works for Birmingham Northfield Labour MP Richard Burden. The West Midlands constituency Labour Party offices are packed with Watsons…

The total annual cost to the taxpayer of the Watson family’s five not-so-little piggies is in excess of £300,000. Far more than the disgraced Derek Conway fiddled…

The Conway scandal centred around £40,000 he’d paid to his son and it has to be said that £300,000 is definitely far more than £40,000. You can’t argue with numbers.

But what is “Guido” comparing? The £300,00 is in large part made up of Tom Watson’s salary as an MP (£60,000) and his expenses for 2006/07 (£150,000). The £40,000 is not in large part made up of Derek Conway’s salary as an MP (£60,000) and his expenses for 2006/07 (£140,000).

(By the way, Conway’s London constituency is about 100 miles closer to Westminster than Watson’s. “Guido” never mentioned that.)

Instead, the £40,000 refers to specific money paid by Conway to his son. Having investigated whether these payments were justifiable, the Standards and Privileges committee said they were “astonished that there appears to be no evidence, independent or otherwise, of any aspect of Freddie Conway’s work for his father”. They also concluded that Derek Conway had paid his “all but invisible” son bonus payments which were substantially larger than allowed by the rules.

I can find no similar report from the Standards and Privileges Committee regarding Tom Watson and £300,000.

So is it a like for like comparison? Obviously not. I feel silly even asking the question. And yet, “Guido” has attempted to suggest that it is.

I can’t say for sure why Paul has attempted to make this ridiculous comparison but I suspect it has something to do with his willingness to treat all politicians with equal distain…