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
-
Burnham has left a gap on tax. We should run through it. (Tom Reeve)
-
Should the Liberal Democrats support “None of the Above”? (Samuel Jackson)
-
Extending the school day: A catalyst for economic growth (Edward Marsh)
-
An open letter to Andy Burnham (Tony Vickers)
-
Four challenges in Andy Burnham’s in-tray (Callum Robertson)
-
How Oswald Mosley met his match in Swansea
-
Welcome aboard
-
50 years in business
-
A cross between Biggles, Tintin, the Famous Five and Fitzcarraldo
-
George Orwell on the style and quality of C.S. Lewis's arguments
-
London tram driven the wrong way through Croydon town centre
-
First Labour by-election gains of the Burnham Premiership
-
Mr Smith Goes To Washington
-
The problem with balancing budgets
Recent Comments
Peter Davies
"Without more social housing, families on low and unstable incomes are forced out of more prosperous areas, where there is work; there is a rise in homelessness...
Jenny Barnes
WTF is TFA...
Hywel
@Jeff There should then be a lot of evidence of people increasing working hours/finding better paid jobs in 2010-2015. How did that compare to people doing th...
Peter Martin
Can I suggest an experiment with social housing? We'd need to find a local council who will be willing to co-operate. The government will need to lend out, s...
Jeff
Daniel Walker 17th Jul '26 - 11:41am: Not the EU though, which covers much of Africa under the Everything But Arms program, and some of the rest, inc...
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.