The Conservatives are splattering the Hertfordshire towns and countryside with "Vote for Change" posters. If you vote for Oliver Heald (the incumbent MP) are you getting change?

Mr Heald has shown that he does not put the "public interest" above his own and that he is representative and emblematic of the old, discredited, Parliament - the one we want to see the back of.

An MP should have a good grasp of "the public interest" and be able to put it first in actions - not just words. After the loss of trust in politicians since the MPs' expenses scandal, this characteristic is essential. In Mr Heald - it is sorely lacking.

Here is a handy check-list of where Mr Heald, in my humble opinion, fails "The Test" for entrance into a truly "New Parliament" - where the public-interest is positioned before self-interest. Just for the record - I am not a member or supporter of any political party and do not have a political "axe-to-grind" here. I am simply an angry tax payer:

• Mr Heald has claimed expenses in full for a London flat he only partially owns as his "necessary" second home - yet he is only a 50 minute commute to the House of Commons. There are worthy examples of MPs with constituencies further afield (e.g. Cambridge) who have claimed zero on the second home allowance and, of course, hundreds of Mr Heald's own constituents who commute daily to and from central London. Self-first for Mr Heald - not the public interest.
• What's more, Mr Heald has traded up (from a self-evidently adequate 1 bedroom flat to a two bedroom flat) in 2003, playing the London property market and pocketing the profit for himself. Public interest coming a distant second here too.
• According to a press report, this second home is only partially owned by Mr Heald, but, has been claimed for in full by him from the tax payer through his expenses. Either Mr Heald is benefiting financially from this arrangement (if the co-owner meets some of the costs), or, the co-owner is benefiting by meeting non of the costs (Mr Heald has refused to clarify). Either way, public interest is still not getting a look in.
• Mr Heald stopped claiming expenses for this London flat in August 2009 - as he - apparently - no longer needed it. But, hold on. Has Mr Heald stopped being the MP for NE Herts? No. So, no change of circumstances, but, the flat is no longer necessary. Meaning, quite simply, the flat was NEVER "necessary" for him to fulfill his Parliamentary duties, but, of course, a nice little tax-payer funded property investment.
• As Parliament is in recess for around half the year, Mr Heald's judgment here on value-for-money for the tax payer in funding this property all year 'round is very poor - to put it politely. This also helps support a view that the "unecessary" London flat is primarily a property investment for Mr Heald.
• Claims stopping? Could it be that Mr Heald MP saw "the writing on the wall" and realised that profiting from second home investments might be stopped - post the "Kelly Report"? Has he sold the flat in order to profit from the capital gains while he still can? After all, it would no doubt be a disappointment for him if his property investments could not come to fruition. We don't know. He won't say.
• Mr Heald's playing of the London property market should not have cost the tax payer the best part of £200,000 since 2001. Self-interest first, public-interest second. At least Mr Heald is consistent.
• Mr Heald has previously (year after year) "milked" the "petty cash" allowance designed to help MPs meet incidental office expenditure. To accept his expenses claims here, we are asked to believe that Mr Heald spent exactly, to the penny, the maximum allowed each month - a generous £250. How could the expenditure always have been £250? never £225.25 or £198.10? Always £250. Could it be - because that was the maximum he could "milk" each month?
• Mr Heald has, by his own admission, destroyed/disposed of records he personally kept to account for around £3,000 per year of "petty cash" claims. There was apparently no "petty cash" ledger or vouchers - as one would expect. Apparently then, only Mr Heald personally handled/accounted for the "petty cash". Is this lax approach to accounting for large sums of public money what we want from our MP? I would suggest that any manager in a business behaving like this would face an investigation.
• Mr Heald has distinguished himself in being one of that particular breed of MP who feel it right for the tax payer to feed him (having regularly made large monthly claims from expenses for "food"). That is on top of a salary at three times the national average. But, most importantly, this is despite the fact that we fund a "second home" in London for Mr Heald. Therefore, by definition, Mr Heald is not away from "home" in London - the only basis upon which an employee should expect a subsistence allowance of any kind. If we are funding a fully equipped and refurbished flat in London for the MP (presumably with fridge/freezer, kitchen etc. and a shop on the corner) and room for the kids and the wife to stay, should we also be meeting his food bills? Presumably Mr Heald only has one stomach and would have needed to eat had he been in Royston. Full marks for consistency Mr Heald - no marks for judgement. A very greedy Mr Heald first - tax payer second.
• Mr Heald has allowed two of his adult children to make use of the tax-payer funded flat in London. This was exposed by the brief publication of a hand-written note included in Mr Heald's published Parliamentary expenses on-line and subsequently reported in the press. That note has been expunged from the public record at Mr Heald's instigation (see below for convenience).
• Mr Heald has steadfastly refused to answer reasonable questions put to him by me on the use and ownership of his London flat (simply follow the Oliver Heald MP tag here to see full details). This evasiveness is unacceptable for an MP at any time, but especially in our "New Parliament" and from an MP who sits, ironically enough, on The Committee For Standards in Public Life. Mr Heald first, public interest, openness and transparency second. There is a pattern isn't there.
• Mr Heald chooses to practice nepotism in employing his wife Christine as his office manager - paid for out of public funds. Just were else can we see a public sector employee (albeit elected), in charge of a significant budget, being able to employ family members? Mr Heald sees nothing wrong in this. Self-interest (or family interest) first - public interest second.

"Vote for change"? Not on a local level at least. I would suggest, as above, that Mr Heald is representative and emblematic of the old, discredited, Parliament.

Your X anywhere else would be a real "vote for change".