LDV Members’ Survey – MPs’ expenses (1): what you said about Chris Rennard

On Tuesday evening, LDV emailed those Lib Dem party members signed-up to our private discussion forum inviting them to take part in a survey focusing on MPs’ expenses. Many thanks to the 220 of you who have so far completed it; we’ll be publishing the results on LDV over the next few days. You can catch up on the results of all our past exclusive LDV members’ surveys by clicking here.

First up, we’re going to look at what you said about the expenses stories concerning Lord (Chris) Rennard, the party’s chief executive. Here’s what we asked: Though not an MP, the party’s chief executive Lord (Chris) Rennard has faced criticism for claiming a House of Lords member’s allowance of £41,678 having designated his flat in Eastbourne as his main residence and his London house as his second home. Lord Rennard has stated that all his claims have been specifically approved by the House of Lords authorities. How do you think the party should respond to this?

And here’s what you told us:

>> 22% – The party’s Federal Executive should issue clear guidelines to all MPs/peers for the future, but no further action should be taken against Lord Rennard unless there is evidence he broke Parliamentary rules.

>> 31% – Ask Lord Rennard immediately to clarify where his main residence is, and – if it is not Eastbourne – he should apologise and repay the sum claimed.

>> 24% – Ask Lord Rennard immediately to clarify where his main residence is, and – if it is not Eastbourne – he should apologise, repay the sum claimed and be suspended and/or have the whip withdrawn.

>> 18% – Immediately suspend Lord Rennard from his post as chief executive pending a report from an independent committee appointed by the party’s Federal Executive on whether he broke the rules.

A split result, though the most popular response would see Lord Rennard – if his main residence is shown not to be in Eastbourne – forced to apologise and pay back the money mistakenly claimed, drawing a line under the episode. However, that would not satisfy 24% of you, who think that Lord Rennard should also be suspended or have the whip withdrawn in such circumstances.

Almost one-fifth of you, 18%, think the party’s federal executive should have taken the decision to suspend Lord Rennard pending a proper investigation to determine if he broke the rules. While 22% adopt a more lenient stance, believing that if, as Lord Rennard states, his claims were specifically approved by the Lords authorities then it would be better simply for the federal executive to make sure clear guidelines are in place for the future.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in LDV Members poll.


  • I’m with Chris Paul and Jennie,

    Let’s consider Tory “Lord X”. Lord X spends his week living in Putney and working full-time in a political consultancy in St James’s. However, Lord X has designated his weekend home in Deal as his main address and claims substantial sums in expenses against it. Furthermore, Lord X goes via the Lords every morning, signs in for his daily allowance and then proceeds to his office.

    If it was proven that Lord X only visits Deal at weekends and signs-in to the Lords despite then carrying out a full-time paid job elsewhere, how would Liberal Democrats react? For Tory Lord X, of course, read Lib Dem Lord R and carry-across your reaction.

    This is the real test of how we as a Party are going to deal with sleaze. We have been well-served by the probity of our MPs and gained credit for it. If – if – a Peer is letting the party down, they must be disciplined (more than just handing money back) and be seen to be disciplined – NO MATTER who they are.

  • Sadly I don’t think Lord R is the only LD peer in this category. All the party’s have been pretty silent on the Lords – it is time that our party and others spoke up.

  • Like Jenny, I thought the LibDems were better than that. I am not a party member, just a voter.

    I have always dismissed the Labour and Tory claim that LibDemmers will point in any direction that suits them – well prove it is not true by dealing with Rennard in the way you criticise Brown for not doing. (Bad grammar, I know)

  • Andrew Suffield 21st May '09 - 11:57am

    For me, it’s not about an exception to due process, it’s a recognition of a culture shift in Westminster. This sort of behaviour was widespread and formally approved by the group who were monitoring expenses (much like people who stretch the truth on their tax returns) and now we’re putting a stop to it by tightening the rules. I’m not inclined to think that further punishment of everybody involved is necessary if they correct the matter promptly – in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I’m willing to consider these claims to be a mistake made in haste rather than deliberate fraud.

    So, where somebody promptly corrects the mistake and returns any money claimed in error, I see no particular need to go further. I wouldn’t be bothered by a full investigation, but I’m not going to push for it. This has got nothing to do with his party affiliation or seniority, it’s the same thing I think about all the members of both houses. I am interested in reforming the rules and ensuring this stops here, not in retribution.

  • Alix Mortimer 21st May '09 - 12:02pm

    The trouble is that some (most, even) of the population are interested in retribution. They will judge us according to that standard.

    I wonder what we’d find if we looked at how income brackets are distributed across those four different statements’ respondents?

  • Alix Mortimer 21st May '09 - 12:03pm

    “I suspect that members of the FE are under no obligation to tell us”

    Really?? I’m sure they are – why do we bother electing half of them otherwise?

  • Alix Mortimer 21st May '09 - 12:34pm

    Yeah – no new info. The “breaking news coverage” referred to by Mark littlewood on the Liberal Vision blog turned out to be twenty seconds of Jonathan Crick saying that there had been a call for Lord R to explain last week’s allegations in the NotW, and the call in question had been from… Mark Littlewood. Who then, of course, wrote a post about the “breaking news coverage” coming up on Newsnight. Oh, it’s all just so baffling…

  • Alix Mortimer 21st May '09 - 12:45pm

    Sorry, Michael Crick. I must have been thinking of Jonathan Creek. Who, I might add, would have been way more entertaining:

    “So the question is, how did Lord Rennard manage to appear at a party in London while at the same time living in his main residence in Eastbourne? We all thought there had to be some supernatural explanation. But actually it was all mind-bogglingly simple…”

  • Alix – that’s not quite true. Crick was the one who raised Rennard’s expenses as part of a latest sleaze update. They are in the public domain regardless of Mark Littlewood’s activities.

    Unless Chris can prove to the satisfaction of the media that Eastbourne is his main residence this isn’t (nor should it) going to go away I’m afraid.

  • Liberal Eye 21st May '09 - 1:09pm

    A Chief Exec must, like Caesar’s wife, be above suspicion – and not not just on the narrow criterion of complying with the (very inadequate) rules.

    Above all this speaks to motive and attitude which connects to Jo Christie-Smith’s concerns around corporate governance which I very much share.

    When I first became involved one of the first things I discovered was what I privately came to think of as ‘the headwind from Cowley Street’. If we did well it was despite and not because of the lead from the national party; it remains the case that national results lag local ones and that national support depends to an uncomfortable degree on protest and tactical votes.

    There’s nothing wrong with protest votes per se but we ought by now to have a large base of principled voters.

    Rennard was/is the arch tactician of the protest vote but if we want to move on we need to find a Chief Exec with a different skill-set.

  • Alix Mortimer 21st May '09 - 1:10pm

    @Dan, that it was already in the public domain was kind of my point. There was no “new” news.

    Bloody timestamp is broken again.


  • David Harvey 27th May '09 - 3:07pm

    This is all rather bemusing. I am contantly receiving requests for money to help the party, whilst others, who should know better are having a very rich time of it. The worst is that party members have not been told the truth. What is the good of having a Liberal Democrat party if we, the members, can be lied to as a matter of course?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • William Francis
    I'm very sorry you feel that way. I have been a party member for over four years now and I have being increasingly jaded with the leadership's unimaginative ...
  • Tony Greaves
  • Tony Greaves
    Whatever - we must do everything we can to campaign hard locally and not wait. Different places may do it in different ways but it people are happy doing leafle...
  • Joseph Bourke
    John Marriott, Leslie Kramer is an English literature graduate and has a Master of Fine Arts in theater from Yale School of Drama, but pursued a career as a ...
  • John Marriott
    @Peter Martin I studied Modern Languages at Cambridge, not economics. You continue to miss the points I have been trying to make. If you can go back to your co...