To be honest, I’m not seeing much of anything apart from a lot of one-upmanship and angriness.

Do you see any hint in the pro-Rennard comments above that there is a problem concerning Lords’ allowances that needs to be dealt with?

The message I’m getting from them is that Rennard has been vindicated and that he was perfectly justified in claiming £40,000 to cover the costs of sleeping under his own roof. Is that really the party’s attitude?

“This seems a fully plausible explanation to why his Eastbourne home can be considered his primary residence.”

I think it’s clear that it wouldn’t be so considered if the same rules applied to Lords that apply to MPs. And that’s even if one accepts the curious picture of Rennard sleeping in London while the Lords happen to be sitting, but commuting to his full-time London job from Eastbourne when they happen to be in recess. Did he really do that when he was Chief Executive, or is that what he does currently?

But as you say, he doesn’t have to prove anything. How could he, when the rules don’t define what “main residence” means?

Writing as someone who was Rennard-bashing long before it was fashionable, I find it hard to get exercised about this issue. I have my own reasons for not being displeased with him leaving the post of Chief Executive but this second home business isn’t one of them.

Fundamentally, when it comes to abuse of House of Lords expenses, where does one start? The whole system is corrupt, from the practice of appointing legislators (in the 21st century!) onwards. The allowance system offers generous expenses but works on the assumption that peers are part timers. This has engendered a “Sign In and Sod Off” culture combined with an attitude that it is essentially pay doled out on a pro-rata basis.

Rennard is far from alone in operating on this basis – either within the Lib Dems or more widely. And they all have jobs for life – at least until we reform the House of Lords (which they themselves have an effective veto on). What are we going to do? Sack half our Lords Parliamentary Parties but allow them to continue to vote in the House of Lords? What would that achieve?

In the short term we should fundamentally reform the allowance system – that is being done. In the longer term we should press for democratic Lords reform, but how many of Rennard’s detractors here actually care about that?

In view of the assurances by Lord Rennard about the change in his circumstances and the time he spends in Eastbourne, and in the absence of any definition of main address in the current guidance to the House of Lords’ Members Expenses Scheme, I have come to the conclusion that I should not uphold the complaint.”

I’m really not sure what you mean by “finding evidence” This seems a fully plausible explanation to why his Eastbourne home can be considered his primary residence. Besides, if there are allegations of wrongdoing, surely the onus isn’t on him to prove his innocence, but on the investigators to prove his guilt. That’s a concept called “innocent until proven guilty”

I think any reasonable person would say that “clearing Rennard to the fullest extent” would involve finding evidence that Eastbourne really was his main residence on some sensible criterion – rather than, in essence, concluding that the rules are so badly drafted that they can’t be broken.

But of course, no such thing has happened. After all the months of allegations and investigations, the Clerk has simply accepted Rennard’s “assurances” and observed that the complaint shouldn’t be upheld “in the absence of any definition of main address”

And this is what we knew all along. The rules don’t define what “main residence” means, so it’s impossible to demonstrate that the rules have been broken!

Even on Rennard’s own account – and that is apparently based on “recent” records and current behaviour, while it’s now almost six months since the original allegations – it’s evident that he spends well under half his time in Eastbourne. If he were subject to the same rules that apply to MPs, he couldn’t have claimed a penny.

And in any case, let’s not lose sight of the fact that when he did stay in London, he stayed in his own home. What conceivable justification could there be for claiming £40,000 of public money, when he had incurred not a penny of accommodation expenses? No justification, except that the rules – and the system of trust under which they operated – allowed him to do so.

There have been a predictable number of comments that essentially say “I don’t care that he’s been fully investigate and exhonerated by and independent source, I’m an ultra-partisan internet troll and I desparately wanted him to be crooked – if I want a thing to be true badly enough, doesn’t that make it true?”

It may be worth showing what Mark has omitted in this respect:
“… that his Liberal Democrat party membership had remained in London since party rules provide for membership to be held where you live or where you work. He explained that he is, nonetheless, actively involved with the local party in Eastbourne.”

You may think it clever politics to turn a blind eye to such abuse when it’s your own side and applaud investigations that do not actually seek to properly investigate challenging questions, but it is not a mature or sensible way to deal with such problems. If you do then I fear you may have begun loosing touch with why it is important to obtain political power in the first place.

The Party and some activists may wish to ‘manage’ this story away without dealing with the deeply serious allegations at its root, but as we said in 2003, not in my name.

Last time I saw Chris he’d lost a lot of weight through a careful health routine – I hope this additional stress being lifted helps.

A moment of silence, though, for poor Mr John Zims. Whatever will he find to do with his time now? Stalking celebrities? UFO-spotting? Walking round with a billboard with Dan Brown’s latest dumbed-down revelations daubed on it?

“Chris Rennard’s main residence since he was accused of re-designating his home to abuse the expenses system is totally irrelevant.”

Just about says it all. Having been acquitted, you craft a sentence which effectively says “since he was accused of being guilty his acquittal is irrelevant”

Under your test nobody could ever be found innocent. How could his main residence NOT possibly be of the utmost relevance? Designation is wholly about which is a person’s main residence.

Flabbergasting.

The letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments is utterly ludicrous. Chris Rennard’s main residence since he was accused of re-designating his home to abuse the expenses system is totally irrelevant.