tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post9018126257727265862..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: One Rule For Them...Iain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-22860035640186756332009-01-21T16:45:00.000+00:002009-01-21T16:45:00.000+00:00Why does boothroyd never reply when browns accused...Why does boothroyd never reply when browns accused of doing what Green did.Typical double standards from his masters innit sad.<BR/>Come on boothroyd,lets hear you condemn brown as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-20244432715650055532009-01-21T14:11:00.000+00:002009-01-21T14:11:00.000+00:00David BoothroydRunning to form, again. You obviou...David Boothroyd<BR/><BR/>Running to form, again. You obviously believe that the Fees Office - which we all pay for - should not have an additional burden placed upon it. Why?<BR/><BR/>So far the Fees Office has shown itself to be incapable of regulation - short of rubber-stamping all claims. <BR/><BR/>You're really being quite obtuse. It's perfectly reasonable for the public to know exactly what our MPs are claiming from the public purse - in full detail. <BR/><BR/>You claim additional work-loads. Fine, employ more staff. So far there's been no complaint about the numbers of those working in the Fees Office - but there certainly has about the lack of oversight and transparency. <BR/><BR/>Frankly it's in the interests of the Fees Office to collude with MPs who do not wish to see their expenses revealed to the public. The Fees Office certainly doesn't want its utterly useless perfomance to be held up to scrutiny. That is the game-plan. Plead on the basis that they don't have the resource. Well it ain't going to cost that much to replace the Fees Office with a half-way decent firm of book-keepers. Probably rather less that the costs of the Office as it now stands. <BR/><BR/>It's not rocket science to control, record and annually publish expenses of about a couple of thousand people - even if some of them are those exotic creatures called Members of Parliament. I would use about half a dozen people at the most to do that, and with office space and overheads you should be able to do the job comfortably for about a million per year - and have some cash left over for the occasional piss-up too.Unsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08307116169498533047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-42931734033978188262009-01-21T13:06:00.000+00:002009-01-21T13:06:00.000+00:00Signatories so far: Swinson, JoShepherd, RichardSa...Signatories so far:<BR/><BR/> Swinson, Jo<BR/>Shepherd, Richard<BR/>Sanders, Adrian<BR/>Winnick, David<BR/>Bottomley, Peter<BR/>Hoey, Kate<BR/>Russell, Bob<BR/>Harris, Evan<BR/>Field, Frank<BR/>Fisher, Mark<BR/>Webb, Steve<BR/>Hopkins, Kelvin<BR/>Jones, Lynne<BR/>Key, Robert<BR/>Loughton, Tim<BR/>Moore, Michael<BR/>Burstow, Paul<BR/>Corbyn, Jeremy<BR/>Davey, Edward<BR/>Drew, David<BR/>George, Andrew<BR/>Barrett, John<BR/>Stunell, Andrew<BR/>Willis, Phil<BR/>Alexander, Danny<BR/>Carswell, Douglas<BR/>Davies, Philip<BR/>Farron, Timothy<BR/>Leech, John<BR/>Hunter, Mark<BR/>Rennie, Willie<BR/>Davies, DaiBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08810599928765693534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-89111613324300265252009-01-21T13:01:00.001+00:002009-01-21T13:01:00.001+00:00It has just come to light (in the DP) that this ha...It has just come to light (in the DP) that this has now been shelved: the Statutory Instrument has been withdrawn.<BR/><BR/>I think it must have got a little too hot for the Government to be able to contain, especially after the 3-line Whip business came to public noticeā¦John M Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06251285057595626917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-47022265221162960742009-01-21T13:01:00.000+00:002009-01-21T13:01:00.000+00:00Did you notice how the Clunking Fist managed to bl...Did you notice how the Clunking Fist managed to blame the Tories for this U turn...<BR/>Apparently they had suggested that they would support the move - now it is clear that they don't. So the PM removes the SI.<BR/>Who is running the country?Eddie 180https://www.blogger.com/profile/13431191567949672191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-9165415362332034622009-01-21T12:57:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:57:00.000+00:00Iain: I blogged the disgusting approach by Labour ...Iain: I blogged the disgusting approach by Labour to whip this through last night (so all three readers of my blog can be informed) and have got a few more people involved. I've just read about the U-turn and I'm quite happy - it could be better, e.g. the whole vote being scrapped, but it's good.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06710437448588273440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-82307487143418732102009-01-21T12:52:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:52:00.000+00:00Looks like Brown has just pulled the plug on this,...Looks like Brown has just pulled the plug on this, according to the Guardian.<BR/><BR/>http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/21/mps-expenses<BR/><BR/>I emailed my MP (Labour) and got a courteous response that mostly agreed with me but raised a few issues in terms of managing receipts and hinted that he would be voting in favour of the order.<BR/><BR/>I agree there may be difficulties with managing the disclosure of receipts but a FOI exemption through a rushed Order with no debate is not the way to deal with this, but it is textbook New Labour.Jess The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01694805454982688213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-27227807173761150452009-01-21T12:50:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:50:00.000+00:00Confusion! Daily politics show have confirm from H...Confusion! <BR/><BR/>Daily politics show have confirm from Harperson and the lobby the vote is whipped, but Brown during PMQs said it was a free vote. <BR/><BR/>Beckett on DP didn't know whether she was coming or going!TheBoilingFroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00791961503315586243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-22266938274571449052009-01-21T12:44:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:44:00.000+00:00Free vote now eh? HmmmmmFree vote now eh? HmmmmmJonathan Sheppardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10238183487590130264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-78818511615524159162009-01-21T12:40:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:40:00.000+00:00The Guardian is reporting that Brown has backed do...The Guardian is reporting that Brown has backed down and that there'll be full disclosure of accounts within 'weeks'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-30208041211328027122009-01-21T12:39:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:39:00.000+00:00A reply consisting only of "what utter rubbish" do...A reply consisting only of "what utter rubbish" does not constitute an argument. Do you think "MPs should be subject to the same rules as the rest of us" or don't you? If you do, how can you object to the police's actions in respect of Damian Green, and will you send us details of your expenses?David Boothroydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01161970886471901426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-72315758889632547202009-01-21T12:37:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:37:00.000+00:00Harry - this isn't actually about submission of re...Harry - this isn't actually about submission of receipts; the subject is not contained in any of the resolutions to be moved tomorrow.<BR/><BR/>In practice the effect of requiring MPs to submit receipts for everything would considerably increase the cost of administering the Fees Office but would be very unlikely to detect any significant fraud.<BR/><BR/>Reference to HMRC is a red herring. MPs' tax affairs are absolutely subject to the same rules as everyone else. If HMRC treats the Fees Office differently then it probably saves us all money by not requiring so many Parliamentary officials.<BR/><BR/>Note that the primary responsibility for detecting fraud in MPs' expenses is the Fees Office, not the press.David Boothroydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01161970886471901426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-9160743694114755102009-01-21T12:32:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:32:00.000+00:00"Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arroga..."Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in government and defective policy decisions. The Scott Report on arms to Iraq revealed Conservative abuses of power. We are pledged to a Freedom of Information Act, leading to more open government.."<BR/><BR/>Tony Blair, Labour Party Manifesto, 1997Wrinkled Weaselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05291551539649118631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-41039046066204234012009-01-21T12:31:00.001+00:002009-01-21T12:31:00.001+00:00What utter rubbish. So it's clear, you don't think...What utter rubbish. So it's clear, you don't think MPs should have to provide receipts for their expenses. The thing is, I just know that if this was being proposed by a Tory government, you would be arguing exactly what I am. And you'd be adding in accusations of Tory sleaze for good measure.Iain Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-17548042295024527612009-01-21T12:31:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:31:00.000+00:00Yet again, you fail to answer the question.Why do ...Yet again, you fail to answer the question.<BR/><BR/>Why do you think that MP's should be exempt from detailing their expenses, when other aren't? Why should this area of public expenditure be exempt from scrutiny?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-83794959174731215112009-01-21T12:29:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:29:00.000+00:00Furthermore it seems the Conservative Party have b...Furthermore it seems the Conservative Party have been utter hypocrites on this issue as well. They negotiated the text of the draft statutory instrument with the government, said they were happy with it, and then say that they are against it!<BR/><BR/>Opportunistic do-nothing Tories are nothing new but this is as blatant as they come.David Boothroydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01161970886471901426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-39619244220860068262009-01-21T12:23:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:23:00.000+00:00David Boothroyd ~ what, exactly, is your problem w...David Boothroyd ~ what, exactly, is your problem with transparency when spending public money? Do you believe, perhaps, that councils, etc, shouldn't bother with publishing accounts, audits, etc, and we should just throw money at them and hope for the best?<BR/><BR/>Everyone who claims expenses has to provide receipts, either to the HMRC in case of the self employed, or to their employer. Why do you think that MP's should be treated differently?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-73745457592633680302009-01-21T12:22:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:22:00.000+00:00The assertion that "MPs should be subject to the s...The assertion that "MPs should be subject to the same rules they impose on others" is a general one which you never stated had any exceptions (indeed to do so would remove all force behind your point). As a point of fact I think it is too sweeping a statement because it does not account for Parliamentary privilege.<BR/><BR/>It applies with perfect force to Damian Green. As I have previously pointed out, Green took the leaks he had obtained from Galley and disclosed them to the press, not to Parliament. He evidently had some form of regular arrangement. A civil servant who regularly discloses confidential documents is arguably guilty of misconduct in public office; someone who arranges their further disclosure is arguably guilty of conspiracy to procure misconduct in public office. Parliamentary privilege cannot enter into it. The point though is this: you were arguing that it did enter into it, and separately that MPs should not have exemptions from the law. The two are plainly and fundamentally in conflict.<BR/><BR/>Then on expenses, you were the one who asserted that because you had to provide receipts for money you claim, MPs should have to do so. You brought in your own expenses into the comparison. Now you want to dance around the issue and bring in the difference between public and private sector employment. It may surprise you to know that you can't use Freedom of Information to get expenses claims by Civil Servants. (NB the National Audit Office voluntarily disclosed Sir John Bourn's claims, just in case you were thinking the opposite)David Boothroydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01161970886471901426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-41475155845530042462009-01-21T12:21:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:21:00.000+00:00Sorry, Iain - my bad!Sorry, Iain - my bad!Lady Finchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03695379463537122656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-85609533888885161352009-01-21T12:13:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:13:00.000+00:00Lady Finchley, please mind your language!Lady Finchley, please mind your language!Iain Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-73520918395941074022009-01-21T12:11:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:11:00.000+00:00ObnoxioIn answer to your comment here is my commen...Obnoxio<BR/><BR/>In answer to your comment here is my comment from the Iain's previous posting on the subject. This is probably why he won't be signing the EDM but will be voting against the Government (unless of course your MP is a Winterton)<BR/><BR/>Cartermagna, may I explain to you what an EDM is? A wank, paid by the taxpayer. It is the way MPs show voters they 'care' about an issue or getting publicity for some hobby horse. Most consitutents get all hopped up about them but they have no influence on legislation and cost you, the taxpayer, every time one of these useless motions are tabled, a few hundred pounds.Lady Finchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03695379463537122656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-64371536850181906942009-01-21T12:05:00.001+00:002009-01-21T12:05:00.001+00:00You fatuous point warranted both replies. Debating...You fatuous point warranted both replies. Debating a point is not an indication of being rattled. I notice you don't respond to the substance of the issue. But I am not surprised.Iain Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-89818845283661512782009-01-21T12:05:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:05:00.000+00:00Oh Mr Boothroyd... a) as Iain says he has to list ...Oh Mr Boothroyd... a) as Iain says he has to list his expenses to the revenue as does anyone who has their own compnay. The issue for MPs is they are paid for by the taxpayer.<BR/><BR/>I had to provide receipts for every expense I had when I worked for Royal Mail (paid for by the taxpayer). I also had to in the private sector for our HR function to deal with.<BR/><BR/>What justification do you have for MPs not publishing this information?Jonathan Sheppardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10238183487590130264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-74825395945239867662009-01-21T12:02:00.000+00:002009-01-21T12:02:00.000+00:00Got you rattled there. An immediate comment and a ...Got you rattled there. An immediate comment and a twitter, you must know you're defending a difficult position.David Boothroydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01161970886471901426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-3677839219834908842009-01-21T11:58:00.000+00:002009-01-21T11:58:00.000+00:00I declare all my expenses to the Inland Revenue an...I declare all my expenses to the Inland Revenue and I have receipts to back up every single one of them.<BR/><BR/>As for you seeing them, I am not a publicly elected official so go hang. But if I were, I would happily detail every penny I claimed from the public purse and back it up with receipts - as I promised to do at the last election. Fat lot of good it did me!<BR/><BR/>You keep bringing Damian Green into this for reasons I can only surmise. There are no crossovers here. Parliamentary privilege does and should not extend to fiddling expenses.<BR/><BR/>Under your argument you are being entirely inconsistent on the Green issue. You are arguing that they SHOULD have privilege on expenses but NOT on confidentiality of constituents' correspondence. Are you sure that is a comfortable position for you to be in?!!!Iain Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.com