Comments on: Lib Dem MP Jeremy Browne appeals against decision which would have stopped him buying Taunton home

By: kerry livermore

kerry livermore — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:18:48 +0000

Apart from the rights and wrongs he should be doing what Nick Clegg recommended and draw a line under it. I have no doubt that Jeremy feels aggrieved over Legg’s findings, the same way he took umbrage at the claims about the Rememberance wreath. But the pubic will not understand the nuances of his position (I’m not sure I do) and sometimes it is best to take the rap and move on. Otherwise he will get lumped in with the Hoggs, Davies, Maliks, Fields, etc etc whose reputations are going down the toilet.

By: Times backs Jeremy Browne’s expenses appeal

Times backs Jeremy Browne’s expenses appeal — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:16:12 +0000

[...] LDV reported yesterday, Lib Dem MP for ultra-marginal Taunton is appealing against Sir Thomas Legg’s request for [...]

By: Hywel

Hywel — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:15:45 +0000

ACA was only claimable towards the interest payments on the mortgage in order to provide second accomodation. What Jeremy seems to have done is increased his mortgage to raise the capital to buy his Taunton home and claimed the extra interest through ACA.

ACA wouldn’t have covered interest payments for any other sort of loan to raise capital so I don’t see why they apply in this situation. The only ground for complaint would be that the payments were claimed in good faith, approved at the time and it is inequitable to reclaim them several years later.

By: David Allen

David Allen — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:38:44 +0000

“Sir Thomas seems to be interpreting the rules strictly … so that those who didn’t …..stick to the letter of the law… are …. being hit. That strikes me as rough justice.”

Er, sorry, the law is the law, you know.

By: Andrew Tennant

Andrew Tennant — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:18:43 +0000

Bit harsh Alix; the job’s not done yet I agree, but what work has been done has been positive. Legg quietly and methodically got on with they job; he has shown in what he did a fairness to the public and a principle of purpose, it’s those opposing the findings and watering down the recommendations who are the rightful targets of vitriol.

By: Alix

Alix — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:47:50 +0000

Sir Thomas is part of the problem. He didn’t investigate property flipping. It’s difficult to see how that amounts to anything less than a stitch-up.

By: kerry livermore

kerry livermore — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:37:23 +0000

P.S. I am a Lib Dem as well hope my next local MP is Chris Nicholson.

By: kerry livermore

kerry livermore — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:32:54 +0000

You will forgive me if I can’t really be bothered to understand his reasons, having listened to Shahid Malik, Doughlas Hogg, Harry Cohen, and myriad others pleading innocence and acting within the rules. Sir Thomas strikes me as a fair judge who has already listened to Browne’s excuses and found them wanting. I would prefer to bow to his judgement than that of yet another MP pleading special priveleges. It is hard to take seriously someone who sees nothing wrong in claiming a wreath on Rememberance day. Though I know he had a good excuse for that as well.

By: Dave Page

Dave Page — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:32:21 +0000

Kerry, did you even read the article before commenting?

By: kerry livermore

kerry livermore — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:31:54 +0000

Oink, oink! No doubt he will tell us that he had been advised by his pal Michael Martin that it was “all within the rules”. Even if he was innocent we won’t be seeing him after the next election.

By: Andrew Suffield

Andrew Suffield — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:12:46 +0000

I don’t see how he’s even in breach of the rules. MP’s expenses are not means-tested; why is it even relevant that he was spending money on other things? If he had bought a yacht instead of a house, would he now be told that this money should have been spent on subsidising his expenses claims?

This one is just plain crazy.

By: Niklas Smith

Niklas Smith — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:54:57 +0000

What is Sir Thomas getting at? This ruling seems to imply that he thinks there is no justification for an MP for Taunton to have two homes. So does Sir Thomas expect Mr Browne to commute to Taunton every night? I’m genuinely confused.

That said, I still think that for the future MPs should only be able to claim rent, not morgage interest, on expenses. I still don’t understand why Nick Clegg’s sensible recommendation to do this was rejected.

By: Andrew Tennant

Andrew Tennant — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:44:15 +0000

I don’t know what sort of salary Jeremy would command outside of parliament but, to me as a pragmatist, accepting the conclusions and paying a one off charge (if he is in a position to be able to do so) thereby maximising his chances or re-election to a well paid job would seem like a good option. Jeremy may well be suffering unfairly here, but I am surprised he is not taking the long term view, taking the judgement as it comes, and putting the matter behind him while minimising his bad PR risk.