tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2719459558369549533.post9021825365763996953..comments2023-07-28T11:57:04.354+01:00Comments on Malc in the Burgh: In defence of MPs... no reallyMalchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18191161151984519900noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2719459558369549533.post-17914854293854656042009-10-14T00:38:49.273+01:002009-10-14T00:38:49.273+01:00But then, you have to wonder what Legg was appoint...But then, you have to wonder what Legg was appointed to do - he must have been requested to give rules and guidelines which would apply retrospectively. In that case, no-one can really complain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2719459558369549533.post-12516853074713359282009-10-14T00:02:21.600+01:002009-10-14T00:02:21.600+01:00Malc this is exactly what disturbs me tonight. If ...Malc this is exactly what disturbs me tonight. If the MPs accept these retrospective changes, will it set an unhappy precedent? Once the depression starts biting, will we hear "Nothing wrong with retrospective legislation on expenses, allowances (even taxes?), well we had to take it on the chin!"<br /><br />And I do feel we're losing perspective. We have discovered that, all in, MPs can be taking in £200k (£250k if you live in Falkirk) from which they pay for 2 residences, a working office, legislative research etc. So over the (past) 5 years we can be talking about near on £1million of financial paperwork. Then, on an arbitrary if proportionate basis, Legg has found a small quantity to be questionable.<br /><br />Questionable today, not questionable when they were being properly signed off by some Officer of the Crown.<br /><br />I don't set out to defend MPs, not by a long shot. But it worries me what we might be letting them get away with under cover.Sophia Panglosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10089164117446635962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2719459558369549533.post-29008966058570675852009-10-13T18:41:09.456+01:002009-10-13T18:41:09.456+01:00I'm not questioning the guy's credentials....I'm not questioning the guy's credentials. All I'm saying is that its not really that fair to change the rules retrospectively.Malchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18191161151984519900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2719459558369549533.post-51480490615959407652009-10-13T18:16:39.514+01:002009-10-13T18:16:39.514+01:00"they've brought a football referee to a ..."they've brought a football referee to a rugby match"<br /><br />haha, nice one.<br /><br />However, as a QC, former Permananet Secretary, former clerk of the Crown and member of the Audit Commissions, then rugby or football and he should be just fine. It's a bit much, given the man's credentials, to suggest that Sir Thomas doesn't have the capacity to conduct this review and conduct it well.<br /><br />And I don't understand rugby so I'm with Legg even more so in light of your analogy... ;)Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01485196287282298695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2719459558369549533.post-79797920973617627852009-10-13T18:02:26.713+01:002009-10-13T18:02:26.713+01:00Aye, Jeff. I'm with you to a point. When you...Aye, Jeff. I'm with you to a point. When you appoint a referee, you abide by his decisions.<br /><br />Problem is though (to continue your sporting metaphor) they've brought a football referee to a rugby match, and now the rules are different - halfway through the game. And that's where I start to feel a bit of sympathy for them.<br /><br />Incidentally, I don't have any more knowledge of the claims than you do. I just reckon that if they were okay when they claimed them, how can they suddenly be fishy now?Malchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18191161151984519900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2719459558369549533.post-72361757438626896412009-10-13T17:58:40.421+01:002009-10-13T17:58:40.421+01:00As much as I don't like siding with the Daily ...As much as I don't like siding with the Daily Mail, the crucial difference is the MPs don't work for a company and they set their own rules. Indeed, in many instances where a claim was rejected the fees clerk was leant on to let it go through.<br /><br />I think the SNP have taken a sensible line on this: If you call in a referee then you abide by the referee's rules.<br /><br />I agree it's all a bit of a mess though and if indeed, as you suggest, the "spirit and law" of the rules was met then it's difficult to work out how someone of Sir Thomas' stature has come to the conclusions he has (not sure how you know about the 'spirit' with so much confidence by the way, or even the "law" for that matter) <br /><br />At the end of the day, it looks terrible to challenge the referee's decision and get another one in to do the job again, dragging the whole sorry expenses scandal out for another half a year, simply because the first guy asked for too much money to be paid back.<br /><br />The MPs should take it on the chin and move on. And they should publish their Legg letters too.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01485196287282298695noreply@blogger.com