The protests

Altogether now, MPs, "This is retrospective adjustment". They do not want to repay what they have taken in expenses because their claims were within the rules.

There were no rules exactly, at least in detail, but the "wholly, entirely and necessarily" clause which inland revenue will ask about any claim we make was also in the MPs' booklet, as was "not extravagant or luxurious, etc. They may have been vague, but some of the expenditures on large plasma TVs or sound systems, luxurious fittings and furniture, repairs, etc., would be very difficult to justify.

Many seem to have convinced themselves that they should have had a higher salary, so these allowable expenses would make up the difference.

They are not poorly paid, and many would struggle to earn anywhere near as much outside parliament.

As for "retrospectivity", I personally would have more sympathy with them if they had not been so keen to impose retrospective cuts on Fred the Shred, on oil companies or bankers.