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
-
Conference from the other side of the barrier (Barry Rhodes)
-
Proper Grimond liberalism (Jack Meredith)
-
Is Conference still supreme? (John Kelly)
-
Ed Davey’s Conference speech (Hugh Andrew)
-
Conference or What? (Roderick Lynch)
-
New crematorium evacuated just weeks after opening as firefighters rush to scene
-
Lib Dems just miss out on another council by-election gain.
-
Surgery tomorrow
-
Let me eat cake
-
Buried alive: A 1954 rescue of a teenager from a Surrey chalk cave
-
Lord Bonkers' foreword to the new Liberator Songbook
-
The continuing cost of Brexit
Recent Comments
Katharine Pindar
It's not too late for FPC to set up a working group on tax policy, so that we can have democratic decision-offering on a vital issue. Michael GB is right to wa...
Neil Fawcett
I don't have a problem with giving basic rate taxpayers a £680 tax cut. But I don't understand why would give the top 20% of earners a £1600 tax cut. Wh...
Tim Rogers
That is a massive drop in the Green vote in the Cotswolds. It looks like Polanski is extremely disliked in rural areas. Interestingly 10pc went straight to Cons...
Jeff
Nick Baird 25th Sep '26 - 6:10pm: We’ll only get the full economic benefit by fully joining both the existing Customs Union and Single Market, in w...
Mick Taylor
The FCC has, for whatever reason, stopped having controversial motions on the conference agenda. I can remember, in the past, huge differences of opinion (for ...
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 £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.