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
- The Falklands are under threat again and we can’t rely on America to save us
- Defining our future in Burnham Britain
- William Wallace writes: The case for higher taxes
- “Palestine should be run by Palestinians” so why won’t Britain reckon with what it did?
- Britain should confront history honestly, not selectively
Search
Op-eds
-
Four challenges in Andy Burnham’s in-tray (Callum Robertson)
-
A plea to our new Prime Minister – abolish me! (Tim Leunig)
-
Mathew on Monday: Burnham has made a promising start. Now comes the hard part (Mathew Hulbert)
-
Orange with Bits (Brendan Roberts)
-
If Andy Burnham isn’t the Messiah… Good (Roz Savage MP)
-
"Winston and David" on stage
-
The Joy of Six 1551
-
Reform MP starts digging her own Standards hole
-
Kevin Keegan: The humble superstar of the Seventies
-
Labour councillor joins Lib Dems in Portsmouth
-
Andy Burnham's Big Promises - Now Comes the Difficult Part
-
Péter Magyar will ask Judit Polgár to become president of Hungary
-
After Dark podcast on the R101 airship disaster
Recent Comments
Peter Hirst
Though I agree with the final sentiment of this blog, devolution does not necessarily lead to greater people power. All power is potentially dangerous regardles...
Jana
“ Whether they win or lose general elections, the Conservative party always has more peers than Labour.” That need not be true - any incoming Labour Gove...- Peter Hirst
The best chance for Gaza in the present context is within a deal that deals with the wider Middle East. Perhaps the present situation is an opportunity that whe... - Peter Hirst
Concerning our purpose, in the present political context we exist to act as an alternative. The Liberal Democrats are the only Party that might sacrifice politi... - Jana
“ This in turn is exacerbating a mental health crisis as young people feel a sense of hopelessness about their current economic circumstances.” I work wi...
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.