A small step-forward for accountability – the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standard’s recommendation from before the election for the details of his rulings to be published online has recently been implemented, along with a couple of years of archives. You can now read the rulings here.
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
-
Enough is enough: Women and girls deserve better (Lib Dem Women)
-
To paraphrase Shakespeare’ ‘something is rotten in the state of Britain’ (Judy Abel)
-
Born to be a Refugee… (Dalila Henniche Maali)
-
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)
-
Observations of an Expat An Iranian Who’s Who (Tom Arms)
-
Write a guest post for Liberal England
-
north easterly
-
The Joy of Six 1560
-
When Fiction intrudes on real life
-
James Fox is interviewed about his acting career in 1968
-
A successful visit
-
Brazilian footballer falls down hole celebrating goal that was then disallowed
-
How Bodhana Sivanandan became British women's chess champion at the age of 11
-
Lib Dems fight to save independent scrutiny of the NHS
-
Good start but....
Recent Comments
Nonconformistradical
@David Warren I get very few letters - I'm ancient and long-retired. Nearly all the organisations with whom I need to deal email me either with the bill the...
Peter Chambers
@Geoff > What are the pressures that prevent governments of whatever persuasion from admitting that the dominant transatlantic model of capitalism has faile...
David Warren
@Noncomformistradical I agree Royal Mail is better than their competitors with parcels, letters however are a different story!...
Nonconformistradical
@David Warren I live in the countryside. Couriers useless - a selection of them have left parcels all round my large garden over the years. I don't get th...
Tom Reeve
Done! I read Lib Dem Voice every day, so I'm very pleased to make a donation. Keep up the good work....


2 Comments
Mr Hemmings
I noticed from the financial registered interests on the parliaments site
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/101025/hemming_john.htm
That you have registered the following.
Two flats in London, from one of which rental income is received.
House and office building in Birmingham, from which rental income is received.
Farmland and woodland in Devon, from which rental income is received.
Now I have mentioned on this site before, and it has been noted that the 2 flats owned by you in London where fully owned by yourself (No Mortgage)
However in order for you to claim a 2nd homes allowance in London, You took out another mortgage on one of your flats, and you used the money raised from the mortgage, to pay of the mortgage on your business premises in Birmingham.
You the claimed Mortgage interest payments on your home in London at the expense of the Tax Payer.
Although I have found, this highly questionable before, you have assured me that it does not break parliamentary standards, even though you have benefited financially by paying of the mortgage on your business premises.
According to the parliamentary site, you also receive a rental income on your office building in Birmingham, I was curious to whom was paying you rent for this office space?
Are you sure you believe it is entirely ethical to take out a 2nd mortgage on a flat, at the expense of the tax payer,in order to raise funds and then pay off a mortgage on a business premises, and then to earn a rental income from that business premises as well?
I am not saying that it is in breech of parliamentary standards,i am asking if you believe it is ethical
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12001909
“The auditor general has refused to fully sign off MPs’ expenses accounts for last year.
Amyas Morse raised concerns about nearly £15m of payments made in 2009-10, the year of the expenses scandal.
He said evidence could not be obtained for £1.8m of claims, because those MPs were under police investigation.
Despite a “major exercise” evidence had not been obtained for another £0.8m and evidence provided for £11.3m was not considered sufficient by auditors”
When is this sham going to be rectified thats what I want to know.
There are some people from some political parties, throwing mud, saying that their MP’s are not caught up in this muck, and yet here we are with at least 15 million pounds that the auditors refusing to sign off.
The standards committee are taking far to long in investigating these cases in my opinion and they are just hoping that with time, the scandal will go away.