MPs will be given the right to appeal the expenses claims requested by Sir Thomas Legg, which is fair enough. If the MPs think that what they are being asked to repay is incorrect, they should have the ability to appeal it. But on one condition: if their appeal against the claims fails and that the repayment is deemed “fair and equitable”, they must then repay the money without any further complaining.
If they don’t, it’s nice to see that they’ve been reading this blog (or, more likely, just come up …

Apparently “it is thought up to 50 MPs are thought to have refused to respond or told Sir Thomas that they will not pay back the money, delaying his final report”.
Any MPs who refuse to pay back the money should have it automatically docked from their pay – with the full amount due to be paid back by the time of the next election. And if they refuse to do this, any redundancy pay they would have received should they be voted out must be held back – even if …

All MPs have been pretty much ordered by the party leaders to comply with the repayments requested by Sir Thomas Legg – or else. But they’re moaning about it.
However, has Legg screwed up? Has he made errors? If he has, rather than helping fix our democracy and draw a line under this whole issue he has done us a disservice. Errors so far claimed to have been made by Legg include:

A number of requests for repayments due to double reimbursements which did not happen
Mortgage documents requested from MPs who rent, …

The MP’s expenses saga lives again, thanks to Sir Thomas Legg, the man who has reviewed all expenses claims. He has written to all MPs and asked many to repay money.
But they’re moaning about it.
They should just shut up and give us our money back. We’ll even work out a re-payment plan! Repaying cold hard cash, not just making a brief apology!
The Legg letters may not be legally enforceable as they stand, but any MP who refuses to comply with them will be pilloried. And deserves to be. Just because …

A Guest post by Matt Wardman.

Sir Thomas Legg, who has reported into the last 5 years of MP’s Expense claims at Gordon Brown’s request, has written to a large number of MPs, with three potential courses of action:

1. Pay back monies which Sir Thomas Legg feels have been claimed improperly.
2. MPs requested to supply him with further information.
3. No further action required.

According to the Telegraph, MPs are threatening to defy orders to repay the taxpayer over questionable expenses claims – with possible legal action by MPs who think that the “rules” have been effectively redefined after the fact by Sir Thomas.

The Telegraph suggests that he has applied a “reasonableness test” to items such as excessive bills for cleaning or gardening, even where they were approved by the fees office, and that Lord Mandelbrot is not very happy about Sir Thomas’ actions.

MP’s Expenses have become a lightening conductor and icon for a disfunctional system of political representation, and have directed the spotlight onto the governance of our Parliament and political process.

We have seen some welcome moves towards making a start in beginning to consider a more representative political system (yes – I think it is that nebulous), and we have seen a lot of brave words which have yet to be matched by deeds.

But what about MPs and their Expenses?

I’m returning to the principle I first posted in February 2008, as part of our “House Rules for MPs” report.

I’d like to see the arrangents for politicians be as close as possible to those experienced by the normal population. I see that as a way to bring more sanity into some aspects of the ordinary system, as well as making our politicians more transparent as a route to restored confidence.

And also to the fundamental principle which has always been in place in the “Green Book” Guide to Parliamentary Allowances. This is the 1971 version:

The Additional Costs Allowance reimburses “for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence…for the purposes of performing Parliamentary duties. This excludes expenses that have been incurred for purely personal or political purposes.”

And this is the 2009 text:

Members are cautioned against instances “where they may appear to be vulnerable to criticism or accusations of impropriety.” It also reminds MPs that their conduct should be placed concepts of “selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, leadership.”

My view of the Legg measures

The strongest proposals in the Legg measures are for repayment of some expenses’ claims.

It seems to me that the basic principles above justify a requirement for full restitution, and that the intentions of those making the claims, and incompetence, collusion, or even corruption in the Parliamentary administration, are not especially relevant.

For a principle of “treat MPs like the rest of us”, then we need to remember that if I make a mistake (or a “mistake”) in my own Expenses, error, misunderstanding or bad advice is no excuse, and the monies must be repaid with the likely addition of interest and a penalty.

I think that these measures should be applied. Equally, if in law the “reasonableness” test applied by Sir Thomas Legg is not valid, then this test should be set aside.

For the sake of our politics this needs to be pursued straight down the line, all the way.

And then we have to get on to everything from the Westminster-bubble Gold-Plated Parliamentary pension scheme, to the 6-12 months salary received for MPs “declared redundant” by their Electorate, and allowances in the House of Lords, and all the rest.

This is just the first step on a long road. Gird your loins.

Gordon Brown has been caught out. He has spent so long trying to frame David Cameron as “Mr 10% cuts“, repeating his mantra of “Labour investment vs Tory cuts” but this has been exposed as a crock of shit.
First Brown has had to admit that he is going to have cut public expenditure, and now it has been revealed that Labour knew they had to cut 10% and thaey were planning to do just that. Even as Brown was lying across the dispatch box every Wednesday at PMQs, they were …

“Labour investment vs Tory cuts” has been the mantra pushed by the government for weeks now. They are trying to suggest that the Conservatives will cut public services and that Labour will “invest” in it – by which they meant spend lots and lots of taxpayers money in a futile attempt make any sort of improvements – and to keep money coming in from the trade unions, of course.
Now, however, Labour has changed it tune. Brown is to actually use the word “cuts” in a speech, and Mandelson has been …

The total amount of debt owed by Britons has fallen for the first time in 16 years – down by £635 million in July, to £1.46 trillion. This is undoubtedly a good thing overall, since it means that people are getting their finances in order and clearing debts rather than building them up.
The biggest fall (£418m) is, of course, from mortgages as the reduction in interest rates meaning that from no change in payments a significantly larger proportion of the capital is repayed. Credit card borrowing, however, rose by £92m, …

Isn’t Labour supposed to be the party of the poor? Don’t they proclaim that their raison d’etra is helping the poor? Then how can a Labour government propose to cut the income of the poorest families in the UK?
The reason for this is to “save the taxpayer money”. But how much will this supposedly save? £160 million – peanuts, in other words, in comparison with government expenditure. But how much will it cost many of those on low incomes who claim the housing allowance? Up to £15 per week, £780 …

“That’ll be £20 please.”
Well, it will be if this idea gets put into practice:

Patients should be charged £20 to see a GP in a bid to limit demands placed on the health service, a centre-right think-tank says.
The Social Market Foundation said forcing people to pay a fee for an appointment could help the NHS cope in the tight financial times ahead.
The group said it would not breach the values of the NHS as charges already applied to dentistry and prescriptions. (BBC)

No no no no no. Doctors are different to dentists; …