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
- Why Britain should be wary of Andy Burnham's Devolution Revolution
- Andy Burnham has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to renew British democracy. He should take it.
- Why the Lib Dem Defence Bonds plan is a bad idea
- William Wallace writes: What do Liberal Democrats have to offer the "left behind"?
- The Lib Dem strategy review
Search
Op-eds
-
Liberalism must mean something again (Stephen O'Brien)
-
Andy Burnham has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to renew British democracy. He should take it. (Roz Savage MP)
-
Why the Lib Dem Defence Bonds plan is a bad idea (Nick Baird)
-
Vince Cable writes: Manchesterism and Localism (Vince Cable)
-
William Wallace writes: What do Liberal Democrats have to offer the “left behind”? (Lord William Wallace)
-
Violent drunk banned from booze after throwing flapjack at police officer's genitals having missed with Pot Noodle
-
Pontywood
-
DCMS logs off X: a second Whitehall exit
-
Ian Holm as Richard III in the BBC's Wars of the Roses from 1965
-
Liverpool Lib Dem boss accused of using "sex appeal to build fanbase" in cover shoot
-
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
-
Lib Dems return to winning ways in council by-elections
-
The Joy of Six 1542
-
Farage in trouble again?
Recent Comments
Steve Trevethan
If, as is the opinion and belief of some, liberalism is fundamentally concerned with freedom, might it help to promte liberalism by differentiating different ty...
David S
Here's something to be learnt from Brexit: For Parliament to vote to have a referendum isn't just a vote to schedule and set up an election. A vote to hav...
Jeff
nigel hunter 1st Jul '26 - 10:32pm: WH Smith sold its shops off and they were rebranded. Now the USA private equity company are selling them off afte...
Francis Chubb
The advantages of this approach are: (1) the Citizens' Assembly (or its alternative) can consider all the points that the commission would look at - indeed, it ...- Francis Chubb
I am very glad to see this article, as I have been hoping that our Lib Dem MPs will find a way to help get Andy Burnham to move on proportional representation s...
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.