Ritchie talking about La Hodge

Richard Murphy, a campaigner and accountant at Tax Research, says it is true “Margaret is not an expert and she does muddle things up sometimes,” but her strength has been to ask the questions that any reasonable person might do without being intimidated.

“She sees over and beyond that,” Murphy says. “That is where she has been amazingly effective. Companies and HMRC rely on the detail to say they have stayed within the letter of the law. But Margaret points out that the outcome is not what parliament intended and therefore something must be wrong. She has upset the cosy relationship between HMRC and big business.”

“Not an expert and does muddle things up at times”…..

Hmm.

By 1994, she had entered parliament and soon co-nominated her neighbour Tony Blair for the leadership of the party – a move that appears to have earned some loyalty. As children’s minister, she faced serious calls to quit over accusations Islington council had ignored allegations of child abuse.

While defending herself and her staff, it emerged she had once written to the BBC dismissing one victim as “an extremely disturbed person”. She later issued a full apology and paid £10,000 in a settlement. This episode was formative and she is said to believe it has made her better at her PAC job – more sceptical about what those in authority know about the organisations they run.

Hmm.

16 thoughts on “Ritchie talking about La Hodge”

  1. Nice surprise to see Ritchie saying this even though he turns it into a virtue. I suspect the word “muddle” will come back to haunt him a bit.

  2. bloke (not) in spain

    I’d be interested to know what legal powers an HoC committee actually has. I can understand how it might have powers to require civil servants to appear before it & answer questions. They are State employees. But do people like the bankers just submit to questioning out of respect for Parliament, or is there a means of compulsion.
    I’d certainly relish hearing Lady Hodge being told to F.O & MYOB.

  3. La Hodge is not even intelligent enough to be hypocritical. With her track record, she is clearly a member of the ruling class, the 1% and a tax planner. Lucky her. I don’t begrudge her that even if it was all inherited and not off her own bat. It is the bat-shit ignorant ranting for a position that contradicts her reality that I can’t stand.

    It really is one set of rules (and not even rules, rather opinions and mine, of course) for you and a different set for me.

    We are before the self-righteous ‘left’. They are better merely because they care (and they really believe this). I have literally been told this by a Hodgy-type here in Spain, a six-property liver-upper who did at least come from the ‘working-class’ but shagged well and caught a rich guy.

    It’s the: If you don’t agree with me, you are an evil …(yeah, you know the rest).

    Black and White, and I am always white even if I do what I tell others not to do.

    The level of analysis is usually puerile, and therefore the identification of the problem is wrong and the answer to the wrong problem is even further off the mark.

    She clearly doesn’t believe in the rule of law, so just exactly what does she and those who cheer her on believe in?

    I keep hearing here that we have the best prepared generation of youngsters ever. Well, in the UK you clearly don’t have, if they believe in mental pygmies like La Hodge (with apologies to those who are height-challenged). And we haven’t here either. What we have is more years of schooling and higher education than ever before producing an ever higher percentage of dumbed-down drones.

    Fortunately, there is still a goodly percentage of youngsters who come through the system and can exercise their brains. I hope our future lies with them and not with the others.

  4. bloke (not) in spain

    Yes, JP. I can imagine the assoles at the HoC appoint themselves all sorts of “powers”. But could one be held in contempt of it? Legally, not the more obvious reaction might have to being exposed to idiots, the criminally insane & crooked shysters.

  5. Here we are. Looks rather fun; a writ hand delivered by the Sergeant at Arms (although sadly no longer bearing the mace). They did it to Maxwell.

  6. I asked him this week whether he thought Margaret Hodge was fit to be on the PAC given what went on under her watch at Islington.

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/03/09/margaret-hodge-the-pac-and-hsbc-questions-needing-answering/#comment-area

    His response:

    “I have never investigated her record at Islington

    Maybe she made errors; I do not know

    What I do know is that she is doing a good job now and that is what I have passed judgement on”

    Just proves that for the left, it isn’t what you do that counts, it’s what side you’re on.

  7. ’d be interested to know what legal powers an HoC committee actually has. I can understand how it might have powers to require civil servants to appear before it & answer questions. They are State employees. But do people like the bankers just submit to questioning out of respect for Parliament, or is there a means of compulsion.
    I’d certainly relish hearing Lady Hodge being told to F.O & MYOB.

    Here is a paper by Robert Rogers, then Clerk of the House.
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmliaisn/697/697we36.htm

    tl;dr the Committees / Parliament have ‘theoretical’ powers to impose fines or imprison non-compliant or dishonest witnesses but the real power (and the only one exercised in modern times) is to damage the reputation of the witness if he refuses to attend or is dishonest.

  8. The article gets a lot wrong.
    The PAC is not “meticulously prepared” , as shown by their ignorance of things, like how VAT operates for self supply.
    It is not “backed by a formidable team” and Hodge has openly said how under resourced are committees.
    She “forced” an HMRC lawyer under oath to give evidence. No. The PAC failed to understand the nature of client legal privilege and demanded he break it. There was no new evidence after he was sworn.
    She did not just “write to the BBC”. She dismissed other papers and rejected a whistleblower.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/with-a-past-like-hers-margaret-hodge-might-show-a-bit-more-humility-10098871.html
    Yet she accuses others of the same faults the article says she learnt about.
    I wonder who checks the G articles?

  9. bloke (not) in spain

    Thanks UK Lib
    But then if “Parliament have ‘theoretical’ powers to impose fines or imprison non-compliant or dishonest witnesses” then they’re taking on some of the nature of a court. That should imply they also have a theoretical obligation to conduct hearings in the manner of a court. Not turn hearings into a slanging session.

  10. bloke (not) in spain

    If “the real power (and the only one exercised in modern times) is to damage the reputation of the witness if he refuses to attend or is dishonest.” then that’s a fine dual edged sword. About time someone wielded it.

  11. “Just proves that for the left, it isn’t what you do that counts, it’s what side you’re on.”
    Lenin: “who?”, “whom?”

  12. ” “Parliament have ‘theoretical’ powers to impose fines or imprison non-compliant or dishonest witnesses” then they’re taking on some of the nature of a court.”

    WKPD –

    High Court of Parliament may refer to:

    In the United Kingdom, the formal name of Parliament

  13. But then if “Parliament have ‘theoretical’ powers to impose fines or imprison non-compliant or dishonest witnesses” then they’re taking on some of the nature of a court. That should imply they also have a theoretical obligation to conduct hearings in the manner of a court. Not turn hearings into a slanging session.

    Well, that’s one of the things Rogers discusses in the paper; we have these funny ideas about procedural fairness and whatnot, so a decision to fine or imprison might be open to challenge.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *