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
-
Winning Britain’s Cities: A Liberal Vision for Urban Britain (Patrick Stillman)
-
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)
-
Observations of an Expat: Canada (Tom Arms)
-
Remember why we started: What the Hong Kong Alliance case means for Hong Kong’s future (Arthur Wu)
-
Are the Liberal Democrats invisible? (Veronica-Mae Soar)
-
Wells to Walsingham: The world's smallest public railway
-
Brexiters' effort to resettle Chagos Islands hit by lack of proper boat
-
Funding Political Parties
-
Gareth Epps and the quiet lanes of Oxfordshire
-
Government says it won't tackle election turnout blindspot
-
The ongoing cost of Brexit
-
After Dark podcast: Dr Louise Brangan on the Magdalene laundries
-
Dunston fair video
-
The Joy of Six 1569
-
Marjory Allen encounters the ban on child actors in British films
Recent Comments
David Allen
"According to the headline in yesterday’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ (28 August) : “Ed Davey refuses to rule out Tory pact”." More deafening silence! Well,...
Peter Hirst
If the political make up of the eu changes significantly would we be better to have stayed in? It probably depends whether you are more interested in global or ...
Mrs Rita Baker
I agree with everything in this post. We need a national message as well as local ones. As I am currently disabled, waiting for a hip replacement and knee opera...
Peter Hirst
An agreement with other countries to coordinate action when their interests collide would be a useful addition to the array of groups, organisations and bodies ...
Peter Hirst
Our political strategy as I understand it does not make it easy for us to have a single message that gives us the publicity we need. We can talk about empowerme...


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.