Unfair? Westminster divided over Legg Report |

Monday 12th October 2009 | 16:28

Unfair? Westminster divided over Legg Report

Legg's call for retrospective repayment of expenses has divided the PoliticsHome insider panel down the middle

Is it fair to ask MPs to repay expenses that were signed off as legitimate at the time? The Phi100 panel are divided over the question, with a narrow margin believing it to be unfair.

47% of the Phi100 panel – which includes strategists, think tank leaders, MPs, peers and political journalists – believe the recommendation is unfair, whilst slightly fewer, 43%, think it is not.

Right-aligned panellists were the most sympathetic to the findings, as exactly half believed the report was not unfair.

"They have no choice"

Numerous panellists who stated the recommendations are ‘unfair’ still believe MPs should adhere to the recommendations of the report.

“They have no choice”, “They can’t ignore it”, and “They should still get on and pay the money back” were amongst the responses from across party lines.

There were similar views from within Parliament. A Conservative MP said, “Anything retrospective is unfair, but that isn't the point. As it is about politicians, no-one cares and therefore they will have to pay”. “It may be inevitable”, said one Liberal Democrat MP, “having set up this report we cannot simply ignore its conclusions”,

A fellow Lib Dem commented, “It’s just a pity the whole class had to be kept in until someone owns up.”

Leave a comment...

Silent Hunter

18:17 |
12 Oct 2009
Recommended
3

Well now there's a surprise!

The PH100 or the Westminster Village Cheerleaders, to give them their real name, think that the MP's are hard done by.

Yet more evidence, if more were needed, that the PH100 or biased in favour of the Government.

Just out of interest; how many of the PH100 have received letters from Legg today?

Any answers, Editor?

A J Scott

18:22 |
12 Oct 2009
Recommended
7

For Heaven's sake, when WILL these numbskulls understand the difference between what you can get away with under vague rules you prescribe and administer yourselves, and what is reasonable and follows broadly what you prescribe by laws (HMRC, Employment of immigrants legal and otherwise etc), It's called conscience or decent behaviour or doing what you tell others to do.

Smarmy nasty people; they must be treated just as they treat the rest of us - investigation, prosecution and if convicted, imprisonment.

I am not just angry; I am shattered by the sheer gall of these shysters.

Oh yes: what proportion of this marvellous panel is " MPs, peers and political journalists" who naturally have the best interests of the country and voters at heart?

rachel

04:53 |
15 Oct 2009
0

I think repayment of expenses that have been claimed legitimately sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of society. Sadly the fact is that politicians such as Mr Brown can AFFORD to pay back a sum such as £12000. This would be a years income for a family of 5 that I know. If this sticks for politicians it will not be long before it sticks for the man in the street who probably has spent the money on basic living costs.

Put your money where your mouth is Gordon and restructure pay-scales more fairly so that MP's gain a reasonable rather than an excessive advantage for their hard work.

Withholding my right to vote for the forseeable future.

David Evershed

19:31 |
12 Oct 2009
Recommended
3

MPs signed off their expenses where it said that the expenses were "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" for their role as MP.

Cleaning and gardening do not meet the criteria and should not be allowed at all. MPs can count themselves lucky they are allowed any.

Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Forgotten details?

The Live Wire

+What we do...

+Sections

+Explore

+PRO

+On the Go

Find your MP

Insider Research

Understanding the heart of Westminster