33 Comments

• Herbert Brown 30th Nov '09 - 10:51pm

  “The most notable change is Chris Rennard joining the front bench teams for Constitutional Affairs and for Communities & Local Government.”

  Does that, by any chance, cover the reform of the parliamentary expenses system?

  You couldn’t make it up!

• Rob F 30th Nov '09 - 10:54pm

  Herbert – your comments are getting very predictable. Chris Rennard was cleared. Get over it already.

• Malcolm Todd 30th Nov '09 - 11:13pm

  Rob F – I know Herbert seems a bit monomaniac on this, but it’s a fair question. Chris Rennard was ‘cleared’ on a technicality, and on the basis of rules that seem to have allowed what most people wouldn’t think was reasonable or honest. Putting the man on the front bench – especially in a role where he is going to be involved in the whole debate about ‘cleaning up politics’ is, at the very best, appalling politics.

• Herbert Brown 30th Nov '09 - 11:16pm

  Rob F

  When you say Chris Rennard was “cleared”, what you actually mean is that the complaint against him in respect of his claim for £40,000 wasn’t upheld because the rules didn’t define what was meant by “main residence”. On his own account, Rennard clearly spent much less time at the seaside flat he claimed was his “main residence” than at his London home. If the same rules that apply to MPs applied to Lords, his claim would have been disallowed.

  As you’ll also be aware, another Lib Dem peer, Viscount Falkland, claimed at least £120,000 under the pretence that his “main residence” was an oast-house in Kent which was actually the home of his wife’s aunt. In fact, Falkland – like Rennard – lived in his own house in London, and acknowledged that his claim had been a “nonsense”.

  But no doubt a complaint against Viscount Falkland would fail for precisely the same reason that the complaint against Rennard failed. And as far as I know the party has taken no action whatsoever over his fraudulent claim (though I’m relieved to see that at least Falkland hasn’t been appointed to the front bench).

• Rob F 30th Nov '09 - 11:24pm

  Chris is one of the most capable peers in our team, has a years-long excellent track record of contributing to constitutional affairs issues in the House of Lords, and the Lords authorities rejected the complaint against him. I can see no reason why any reasonable person would object.

  It comes as no surprise to me that Herbert constantly refers to Chris as “Rennard” – there is clearly some unresolved hostility at play here. “Herbert” is an anonymous troll, and I’m surprised the Lib Dem Voice team have allowed his comments to pop up like ever-so-predictable clockwork for this long.

  Anyway, I’m glad to see the Lords team largely unchanged – they’ve been doing excellent and often unsung work.

• Malcolm Todd 30th Nov '09 - 11:38pm

  Rob F – you’re not doing his Lordship any favours.

  It’s perfectly obvious why a “reasonable person” would object – not least because it’s just been explained.

  I don’t know on what basis you consider “Herbert Brown” to be more anonymous than “Rob F”, or why you find it so hard to understand that LDV ‘allows’ someone to make comments that may be irritating and unwelcome to you but are never, as far as I’ve seen, abusive or aggressive.

  And it’s perfectly normal to refer to someone by surname alone, especially when you’ve already given his full name once. It would be a bit creepy for him to refer to him as “Chris” in the circumstances.

• Rob F 30th Nov '09 - 11:46pm

  Malcolm,

  I’m just one Lib Dem defending another Lib Dem who has made a much larger contribution to our party than I have. I don’t think it’s a quesion of doing people favours. You will see my face alongside my posts, and my name is a link to my blog, so I really don’t think I’m anonymous.

  Anyway, this comments thread is in danger of going round in circles – a common trait of discussions started with the intention of trolling.

• Herbert Brown 1st Dec '09 - 12:07am

  Rob F

  It’s very easy to cry “troll” and make ad hominem attacks. Evidently easier than addressing the arguments that have been presented.

  I really wish someone could explain to me the justification for Chris Rennard having claimed £40,000 of public money in “overnight subsistence” allowance, for sleeping in his own bed in his own house in London, having incurred no additional expenses whatsoever. I have asked that question a number of times, and no one has even attempted to answer it.

  If you really want to “defend” Rennard, why not have a crack at providing a justification?

• Rob F 1st Dec '09 - 12:10am

  I’m more than happy to do so, but I see no reason for the anonymity. You tell us all who you are, and I will happily engage in debate.

• Malcolm Todd 1st Dec '09 - 12:55am

  Rob F – I don’t understand your repeated remarks about anonymity. I’ve no idea who Herbert Brown is, but what is he supposed to do? Give you a potted biography? What would that prove? (I could make one up myself – how would you know?) And what difference does it make? I’ve never seen anyone else on here demand proof of identity before engaging with an argument.

• David L.G. 1st Dec '09 - 1:31am

  In ansewr to Herberts question, I am at university but I personaly consider my main home to be in my home town which I often go back to on weekends, as Chris Rennard lived in eastborne whenever he didn’t have to be in london he may have thought along similar lines to myself (He may not have but I veiw him as innocent until proven guilty).

• David Blake 1st Dec '09 - 8:16am

  There’s nothing wrong with being a ‘troll’. I happen to be a Liberal Democrat, but do sometimes make comments on Tory or Labour sites. The difficulty with ‘trolls’ is when they go on and on and on about something. I then tend not to read what they’ve written.

• Herbert Brown 1st Dec '09 - 8:44am

  David L.G.

  Obviously the rules allow peers to claim anything they like as their main residence, because they leave the concept undefined. So it’s difficult to see how anyone can be proved guilty, whatever they’ve claimed. The defence “it was within the rules” is going to work, because according to the rules, anything goes.

  But what I’m asking is this. When a peer has a home in London, what is the justification for claiming overnight subsistence allowance, when all he is doing is sleeping in his own bed, at no additional expense whatsoever? Put more starkly, why should a peer who has two homes – one in London and one outside London – be paid overnight subsistence allowance, while a peer who has only one – in London – cannot claim?

• Herbert Brown 1st Dec '09 - 8:52am

  David Blake

  Just to clarify, I have always supported the Lib Dems in the past, and until last year I was an active member of more than twenty years’ standing. I resigned because I didn’t like the way Nick Clegg was taking the party, and I have liked even less what I’ve seen since then.

  I shall certainly not be voting Conservative or Labour next year. As things stand I shall probably hold my nose and vote Lib Dem – partly as a personal vote for my MP. The reason I keep raising this business of Lords’ expenses is that it’s the one issue that may repel me sufficiently to cause me to abstain rather than doing that, because I think in a way the integrity of our parliamentarians is the most important issue of all. And though there will inevitably be “bad apples” in all parties, when the party takes no action to deal with them, the party itself becomes culpable.

• Paul Walter 1st Dec '09 - 9:24am

  Chris Rennard was cleared within the rules. I am happy to see him in a role he knows a lot about and has great experience of. Many members of the government and the Shadow Cabinet have been cleared within the rules and they continue in their front becnch roles. Why should Chris be any different?

• Herbert Brown 1st Dec '09 - 10:44am

  Paul

  But surely it must be clear to even the most unquestioning loyalist that “the rules” aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. If the rules allow you to claim £120,000 on the basis that your wife’s aunt’s oast-house is your main residence, when in fact everyone knows you live in your own house in London, what does it mean when someone is “cleared within the rules”?

  But in any case, I’d still like someone to explain to me the justification for someone claiming this “overnight subsistence” allowance when he is sleeping in his own bed, in his own home.

• Paul Walter 1st Dec '09 - 11:05am

  I agree the rules are a nonsense. So what do you judge people by then – rules made up by thousands of individuals based on their varying different opinions and then retrospectively applied? Very fair, I don’t think.

• Herbert Brown 1st Dec '09 - 11:22am

  Why is it that people are so full of righteous outrage when politicians of other parties abuse the system – whether “within the rules” or not – and so full of excuses for doing absolutely nothing when Liberal Democrat parliamentarians do so? No wonder people hold politicians in such low esteem!

  But in any case, I’d still like someone to explain to me the justification for someone claiming this “overnight subsistence” allowance when he is sleeping in his own bed, in his own home.

• Julian H 1st Dec '09 - 4:45pm

  “Why is it that people are so full of righteous outrage when politicians of other parties abuse the system – whether “within the rules” or not – and so full of excuses for doing absolutely nothing when Liberal Democrat parliamentarians do so?”

  Tribalism is more attractive, and a lot easier, than holding principles.

• Andrew Suffield 1st Dec '09 - 6:00pm

  Despite media focus, pretty much everybody in the Lords was claiming expenses under the old, meaningless rules. We cannot judge one from another. Hence there are only two principled options: sack the lot of them and start over, spending months trying to get Westminster back into working order, or say that it’s not worth it and just institute new rules which are enforced from this date forward.

• David Allen 1st Dec '09 - 6:25pm

  Chris Rennard was indeed “cleared within the rules”. He thus joins the many MPs who should and will stay out of jail, but should also feel morally obliged to repay the money.

  Most of the MPs in a similar position have paid up. It reflects no credit on Rennard that he has not. Given that he hasn’t (and also, recognising what Rennard has done for us in the past), it reflects no credit on our party that we have not found the payment ourselves. We have rightly pointed out that we cannot possibly pay back Michael Brown’s £2.4M, which has all been spent. This might have sounded rather better if we had been prepared to dip into party pockets when it was a case of providing a perfectly manageable £40K repayment.

  All this, it seemed, had cut no ice with our leadership, who until today had seemed to be happy to play it all down and rely on the critics getting bored. But now – well, as Herbert says, you couldn’t make it up!

  Must we assume that someone has deliberately decided to wave two fingers in the air? How are we going to look when Rennard enters the national debate, as our party spokesman, on “cleaning up politics”?

• tonyhill 1st Dec '09 - 7:01pm

  “Tribalism is more attractive, and a lot easier, than holding principles”. Spot on Julian H. I hope that people you and Herbert continue to put up with the abuse you get for reminding us that we are supposed to be a party of integrity and principles, not a party that is just a bit better in these respects than the other two.

• crewegwyn 1st Dec '09 - 7:19pm

  I have a huge regard for Chris’s contribution to the party, BUT there are clear issues regarding his claims in the past which have not been resolved by the ruling.

  I cannot help feeling that it would have been wise for the party to have advised Lord R. to have served a couple of years grafting on the back benches before taking a prominent role.

• Ryan Cullen 1st Dec '09 - 8:13pm

  From my quick calculations that one large bench they will need to be sitting on. 43 different Lords and Baronesses with nearly half taking on at least two roles.

• Rob F 1st Dec '09 - 10:44pm

  “How are we going to look when Rennard enters the national debate, as our party spokesman, on “cleaning up politics”?” – I think the honest answer is that when any of our shadow juniour ministers stand up in the House of Lords it goes largely unremarked, irrespective of what they say or do. That’s not fair, but it is nevertheless the way of things. I think people need to stop pretending /wishing this is the House of Commons, and treat it for the different case it is.

  The Lords rules need to be seen in the context that (unlike MPs, MEPs, MSPs, Ams, GLAMs and Councillors) there is presently no pay for peers. Almost all peers claim the daily overnight rate for the costs of being in London. In any event, the system will change and for the first time there will be an element of the allowances that pays peers for the work that they do. Not paying peers at all would simply mean that only the rich or retired and who are willing to live for the rest of their lives exclusively in London could be peers.

  When it comes to Chris’s supposed misdemeanors, there but for the Grace of God go hundreds of peers of all parties. I note that even the people who can’t accept that he was cleared of wrong doing do admit that he WAS cleared.

  Honestly, I just think some of the contributors to this comments thread need to gain a sense of perspective.

• Rob F 1st Dec '09 - 10:46pm

  Eurgh. Typos. Apologies.

• David Allen 2nd Dec '09 - 12:08am

  Rob,

  Lors Sugar recently gained a lot of unwelcome publicity for his speech to the House of Lords, because he made a fool of himself. Rennard on probity might just be another great opportunity to make the front page….

• rantersparadise 2nd Dec '09 - 2:30pm

  @ Julian H

  Sigh.

  But very apt. I want to steal that quote!

• Herbert Brown 2nd Dec '09 - 11:01pm

  “I note that even the people who can’t accept that he was cleared of wrong doing do admit that he WAS cleared.”

  I’m not quite sure what that’s supposed to mean. The fact is that the complaint against Lord Rennard wasn’t upheld _because_ there was no definition in the rules of what “main residence” meant.

  If there had been a definition, and if it had been the same definition that applies to MPs, then even on the basis of Rennard’s own statements the flat in Eastbourne would clearly _not_ have been his main residence, and the complaint would have been upheld.

  “Honestly, I just think some of the contributors to this comments thread need to gain a sense of perspective.”

  Frankly, when I read that kind of comment I wonder what planet some people live on.

  Are you really trying to say that it’s fine for Liberal Democrat peers to lie, in order to claim tens of thousands of pounds of public money that they aren’t entitled to – because the £86 a day attendance allowance plus the £75 office costs allowance isn’t enough for the poor dears to survive on?

  Have you any idea how much some ordinary people in the “real world” have to survive on? And – after all – ordinary people in the real world get prosecuted and sent to jail if they lie about their circumstances in order to claim state benefits.

  Get real.

• Jo 3rd Dec '09 - 12:17am

  I’ve earned £4 and need to write a letter to the DWP to declare earnings. MPs should have to account for every penny in the same way

• Andy Mayer 3rd Dec '09 - 1:04am

  I think Herbert is right Rob, and I think ‘excused’ is more accurate than ‘cleared’ in respect of the ruling, and certainly more accurate than ‘exonerated’ which was the optimistic subject line in the official party e-mail on the matter.

  I think you’ve also made a slight inaccuracy, from the look of the figures just under 60% of peers claim the overnight allowance, so ‘most’ rather than ‘nearly all’. And quite a number of those claim very little.

  The wider perspective on this is that this matter should have motivated a wider debate about the persistence of the Lords in our modern democracy. We should have been leading that. That several of our peers appear as implicated as the rest appears to have sabotaged both that opportunity and Nick Clegg’s ability to stand on the high ground more generally as different to the rest.

  In that regard putting the emblem of excused licence in the peers team supposedly responsible for our proposals for reform is hardly a helpful signal. Perhaps given his rapid recovery from a career-ending illness Health would have been more suitable?

• Herbert Brown 3rd Dec '09 - 4:50pm

  I hadn’t realised that the Senior Salaries Review Body had published its recommendations for reforming Lords’ allowances last week. Here is a link to the BBC’s summary:
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8380678.stm
  and here’s one to the document itself:
  http://www.ome.uk.com/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=1F94B5D8-FD6B-4262-BE27-67C0A009B53B

  The report recommends replacing the current daily allowances (worth about £160) with a daily attendance fee of £200, and cutting the maximum overnight subsistence allowance from £174 to £140. Other reforms to the latter include some suggested criteria by which the “main residence” could be identified, and – for claims in respect of houses in London _owned_ by peers – the restriction to a specified set of expenses, such as utility bills, council tax and so on, but _not_ mortgage payments. And receipts are to be presented in support of these claims. And “as a matter of personal honour” members who maintain a second residence in London for other reasons as well as attending the Lords should charge only a proportion of their living expenses, according to the fraction of their time in London they spend at the House.

  That all sounds fairly reasonable, EXCEPT that it doesn’t seem to have crossed their minds that many peers simply have a house in London and a house elsewhere (and quite possibly other houses besides), and would do whether they were members of the House of Lords or not. Why the state should be giving a handout in those circumstances is beyond me, but clearly it’s going to continue to do so.

  And then the report adds that there’s going to be a transitional period of 5 years, during which peers will be able to carry on claiming up to £15,000 a year towards mortgage payments. And peers who don’t even have mortgages will be able to carry on claiming up to (initially) £9,000 a year above genuine expenses – adding up to a total of £30,000 over the five years. That’s just a free gift, purely designed to cushion the shock, as far as I can tell.

  Sad, but not really surprising.

• James S 4th Dec '09 - 4:31am

  “Tribalism is more attractive, and a lot easier, than holding principles”

  This.