Duncan Borrowman has the story.
Subscribe
-
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
-
Like us on Facebook
-
Subscribe to our feed
-
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Most Read
Search
Op-eds
-
As a party we must be better defined for the 2029 general election (Chris Bowers)
-
From national averages to local realities: inequality in our communities (Tom Walker)
-
We do have a two tier system, Part 2 (Neil Hickman)
-
A Federal Britain: 3. Fiscal Federalism and a complete constitutional settlement (Iain Donaldson)
-
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)
-
Chase Park fair photos
-
Green and Lib Dem Southwark brings government closer to voters
-
A swamp of lies and disinformation
-
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
-
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
-
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
-
Damian Collins at Hereford Military History Festival in September
-
The Joy of Six 1529
-
Blondie: Sunday Girl
-
Liz Saville Roberts to Give the David Lloyd George Memorial Lecture at Gwyl Cricieth Festival
Recent Comments
Kira Collins
“ and will perhaps attract votes in other areas that could deprive Reform or the Conservatives of vital votes that keep their total number of MPs down?’” ...- Kira Collins
@David Raw “ And how, Kira, would you define “the basics of life” My grandfather used to tell me that when he attended school, he used to go in bare f... 
Tom Reeve
I read Mike’s email with interest. It started well before sliding into more of the same. Strong analysis on the campaign model, and the point that demogra...
theakes
Why are we on the other side to the Tories. In areas we are probably nearer to them than certainly the damn Greens, they are the ones we should be having a go a...- Tom Reeve
You can talk about Gini coefficients and wealth and income per decile until you’re blue in the face. The core issue exercising most voters is fairness and pow...
5 Comments
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?
On topic.
I do not see why they shouldn’t include the speaker’s wife on the list of collars to be felt.
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.
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.
The point is that Mr Conway should be at least investigated for fraud. He appears to have diddled the taxpayer out of about ÂŁ40,000 – 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.