Sir Iain Blair says police should investigate Derek Conway

5 Comments

• Dave B
  Posted 28th February 2008 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

  Off topic.

  Have the Lib-Dems made any comments on Ian Davidson’s referendum amendment, detailed by James Forsyth of the Spectator.

  http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/527496/europe-referendum-back-on-the-cards.thtml

  It would appear to offer the In/Out referendum Mr Clegg said he wanted, so will the Lib-Dems be voting in favour of it?

• technomist
  Posted 28th February 2008 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

  On topic.

  I do not see why they shouldn’t include the speaker’s wife on the list of collars to be felt.

• Terry Gilbert
  Posted 20th March 2008 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

  Disgraceful that Conway will not be investigated (BBC website today). I find myself extremely angry about it. Is this what we pay our taxes for? Anyone in a normal job would face criminal prosecution for this level of corruption. The party needs to take a stiffer line – for Nick Clegg (whose leadership has been less than inspiring so far) to say merely that it ‘demonstrates the need for reform’ is simply limp, limp, limp. I am sorry to have to say this, but quite frankly, not even the Liberal Democrats are currently standing up for decent values over this issue, and I feel like quitting party political involvement as a result.

• Mark Pack
  Posted 21st March 2008 at 9:41 am | Permalink

  Terry – Nick’s actual words were much tougher than that: “The public have the right to expect that their money is being properly accounted for. The Speaker’s review of expenses must provide the basis for fundamental changes to the system of MPs’ allowances.”

  The first sentence of that quote covers your point about our taxes rather neatly Whilst calling for “fundamental” change is hardly calling for mere tinkering.

• Terry Gilbert
  Posted 21st March 2008 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

  The point is that Mr Conway should be at least investigated for fraud. He appears to have diddled the taxpayer out of about £40,000 – maybe more. Of course there should be change to the system, and Nick has a similar line to the other two parties on that. But the only way to really satisfy the public anger over this is to throw the book at the chief perpetrator, and on this I believe that Nick is avoiding the central issue, which is that a crime appears to have been committed by an MP. MPs cannot and must not be above the criminal law, whatever party they belong to. Saying (as Nick effectively does) ‘the system should change so that it doesn’t happen again’ is, I submit once again, simply too limp.