Not a leg to stand on
David Blackburn 1:37pm
Oh dear. The Evening Standard reports that Harriet Harman trod on Sir Thomas Legg’s toes and forbad him to publish claims that the fees office had turned down. Harman queried the ‘appropriateness’ of extending the enquiry beyond wrongly approved claims.
English is a wonderful language and ‘appropriate’ has a number of nuances. The fees office rubber-stamped pornos, so what on earth did it turn down? Membership of Madame Jo Jo's? A mail order bride as part of the second home allowance? In fact on reflection I don’t want know.
Now on the face of it this disclosure is yet more bad news for Britain’s beleaguered political class: it looks shifty and runs contrary to the new fashion for transparency. But those are superficial concerns. The defining feature of the Legg Commission was its author’s incompetence. Rushing to deliver judgement, Legg took matters into his own hands and over-charged everyone, worsening the situation. And the Standard’s FOI shows Legg at it again:
“Sir Thomas said that he intended to include references to some claims despite the fact that no payments were ever made for these items.“The Leader questioned how appropriate it was to cover items outside those which were actually paid for by public money — the main issue should be payback of those items claimed wrongly.”
Legg should not have exceeded his remit (a charge that was constantly laid against him when he was Permanent Secretary at the Lord Chancellor’s Office). So, this is an entirely novel experience for me: Harriet Harman was, on this occasion, completely correct.
Previous
Alexandrovich
February 19th, 2010 1:46pm Report this commentI've a fairly robust constitution but can you please post a warning prior to putting up pictures of that bloody woman. She makes me physically ill. I'm serious!
Holly ......
February 19th, 2010 2:07pm Report this commentYeah right.
NON OF OUR BLOODY BUSINESS what the greedy MP's claimed for.
Probably things relating to and for the SOLE purpose of doing their job.
Andy H
February 19th, 2010 2:14pm Report this commentI don't see why the public should not be aware of what their MP's claim are "wholly necessary to fulfil their job".
Once the MP has signed this document is should become a public document and legally binding. If they sign for it then they should be held accountable for the accuracy of it.
Otherwise, I may just go to the benefit office and sign up for disability allowance to see if I can get away with it.
What is the difference?
Irene
February 19th, 2010 2:23pm Report this commentThat picture doesn't do Madame Jo Jo justice!
Michael Booth
February 19th, 2010 2:40pm Report this commentDoes not Hattie's famed Equalities Bill give us, the poor sodding taxpayer, equal opportunity to find out just how we are being fleeced? No? What a surprise...
Rhys
February 19th, 2010 2:50pm Report this commentI think "The Court of public opinion" will disagree with you and Harperson on this.
If my MP tried it on with something outrageous and failed to be paid then I'd want to be told. There is such a thing as "attempted fraud" and "attempted robbery" in the laws of our land you know.
These disgusting troughers cannot grab headlines about wanting transparency one day and then obstruct it the next.
barnacle bill
February 19th, 2010 3:37pm Report this commentRemember, No ifs, No buts ....
Nicholas
February 19th, 2010 4:04pm Report this commentUnder the law the intent or the guilty intent (mens rea) is (or was pre-New Labour) an important component to any prosecuted offence. Likewise an intention to claim by MPs who have been shown to be all too profligate, arrogant and greedy when it comes to private pursuits at public expense must surely be in the public interest.
Throw yourself on the mercy of the court of public opinion Harriet Harmthenation, that august body that you set so much store by, and if you have nothing to hide then you will have nothing to fear.
Besides, I though that you were a socialist? Or are the vaulted heights of your antecedance filling the air in your head and giving you more and more the airs and graces of a modern Marie Antoinette? A sort of mad, arrogant, female toff who believes she deserves to be treated differently from the common people?
old fogey
February 19th, 2010 4:43pm Report this commentI think I would be correct in assuming that Alexandrovich's answer to the question that Rod Liddle asked in the magazine a few months ago would be "No.definately not!".
HFC
February 19th, 2010 5:31pm Report this comment180deg.wrong, Blackburn. Anything Harman and her coterie wish to conceal must, by definition, be worth examininbg in some detail. Criminal intent demonstrates culpability IMHO.
Major Plonquer
February 20th, 2010 4:19am Report this commentSirs,
If there's one place in London where there is consistently more debate happening than the House of Commons it is Madam JoJo's. While admittedly most of the debate centres around the sole question 'is she or isn't she?' this would most definitely be a good place for MPs to sharpen up their debating and possibly even negotiating skills.
Membership of Madam JoJo's should not be a perk, however. It should be mandatory.
Call me Infidel
February 20th, 2010 4:39am Report this commentWasn't thi sthe party that coined the phrase "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" I think we should have full disclosure but I expect both sides of teh house supported Harperson in brushing the dirt under the carpet.
Back to top