What is it with the expenses scandal and the smallest room? Already the revelations concerning John “two lavs” Prescott and John Reid’s glittery black loo seat have left Telegraph readers with more wholly unnecessary images than the mind can comfortably encompass. We should probably be grateful that the only Lib Dem item of toilet accoutrement expenditure known thus far is a relatively inoffensive £9.99 toilet brush holder from Homebase.
More alarmingly, we now have at least one offender in the matter of dodgy second home designation, Lord Rennard (health warning – NotW link):
For peers to claim for second homes, their main residence has to be outside London. But we can reveal that he spends almost all his time in a house just TWO MILES from Westminster.
Lord Rennard—said to earn £90,000 a year as his party’s Chief Executive—claimed the £41,678 cash [relating to a flat in Eastbourne] over six years from 2001/02.
Were lords’ expenses ever even part of the publishing plan, by the way? Is this a bespoke leak, as it were?
Our elected representatives seem to be disproportionately plagued by infestations of various kinds, by the way. The targets, indoors and out, so far include John Reid (mice), John Gummer (moles), Gordon Brown (mice) and at least one other (female, Labour) MP (mice and rats). I’m sure there were others which I now can’t find. Maybe the papers have built up an impression of numbers by repeating each other. Either that or the rodents have started the revolution without us.
Despite stiff competition, I think the winner for me so far in terms of sheer effrontery is Margaret Moran’s refurbished holiday home, with an honourable mention for high hollow laughter quotient to the £10 bag of manure claimed by a Tory MP for his garden. We really do pay for all their shit, don’t we.
UPDATE: A House of Lords investigation subsequently cleared Chris Rennard of breaking any Parliamentary expense rules.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Daniel Walker
Andrew Tampion
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
71 Comments
I’m not sure we should be considering this in terms of “winners”. Moran’s obscene defence of her absurd and outrageous behaviour means she is now almost certain to lose her seat. Good.
Our party needs to take an absolute ZERO tolerance approach to this sort of behaviour. Nick Clegg needs to get a grip on this and quickly.
Saying “sory” or arguing that the claims were “within the rules” is nowhere near adequate. If any claim merits an apology, it also merits repayment.
If there are any LibDems who have acted along the same lines as some of the Labour and Tory MPs, they should expect to have the whip withdrawn and be expelled from the party for bringing it into disrepute.
I should stress that I’m not referring to Chris Rennard here. I have seen no independenet corrobaration of the NotW’s rather extreme allegations. I assume they are – to all intents and purposes – wholly untrue. I’d find it very hard to believe that Chris would act in such a way.
If, however, they are true, this would obviously be a matter of the gravest seriousness. And there would be no point in pretending otherwise.
I really hope that Nick and the LibDems can take a lead on this issue. If not, I fear that the vote for extreme parties like the BNP will be terrifyingly high on June 4th.
We just havent had our turn yet…we will be next up after a few days of Tory trauma….
And I will certainly not be supporting expulsions and whip withdrawals in lieu of evidence of serious wrongdoing. Look what happened with Grove and Lansley even tonight; is this a witch hunt or not? I think what happened with these two shows this is simply now out of hand and it is very much a witch hunt….
You’re right in a way, Darrell. The policy shouldn’t be a direct resposne to the Telegraph agenda. And nothing should be done “in lieu” of evidence. Hence my remarks about Chris, which have not been picked up elsewhere.
BUT….we have only got to this stage in the face of immense efforts by the Parliamentary authorities to stop this sort of information coming out.
As the “clean-up and sort-out politics” party, we shouldn’t fire anyone on the spot, but we should be extremely robust about what we expect from our Parliamentary representatives.
The reason that this is becoming a witch-hunt is that Parliament tried to suppress this info. It is now in the hands of a national newspaper. If Parliamentarians don’t like the way the Telegraph is releasing this stuff, they should have released it themselves months ago.
Mark,
I think we agree that we should be leading the way and setting the benchmark for how we deal with this, especially as Nick has talked alot about ‘broken politics’.
And I dont dispute your point about the fact that MP’s have been largely hosited by their own petard on this. At this juncture I think I should perhaps mention Jo Swinson’s excellant expenses page on her website she has put up tonight which is something I think all our MP’s should be encouraged to do. We should not wait for the media to set the agenda here.
Having said that I dont like the tone this is now taking on in the media and as well as taking the lead I think we do need to be saying things which recognise the legitimate concerns but also tack against the current climate to a degree, reminding people that there are alot of hard working people in politics and that not all expsenses are bad, some are neccessary and that innocent victims should not come out of this….
Three cheers for Jo Swinson. Don’t agree with her on absolutely everything, but her instincts are incredibly sound, she is – in my experience – 100% straight forward and honest. More power to her elbow.
I hear you on the “tone” issue. But it’s too late for that now.
I’m afraid there is just no way that trying to remind people that a lot of MPs are hard-working and have some legitimate expenses is now just so many zillions of miles away from the zeitgeist that it would be political suicide to say it.
If you want the LibDems’ core message to also be that we’re worried about MPs and peers who might be “innocent victims”, we may as well remove ourselves from every British ballot paper now.
If I understand your post correctly, even Jo Swinson (who is probably in the hardest-working and least corrupt 0.0001% of MPs) has only put up her expenses online TONIGHT.
There should be nothing knee-jerk here, but there should be some tough decisions. With the exception of the NotW’s (unpicked-up) allegations against Chris Rennard, we don’t know what – if anything – is about to be thrown at our party.
But, I stick by my original view that IF there is anything that anyone thinks they should say “sorry” for, then it should be repaid.
I hope to God that Nick comes across a thousand times tougher on this than Cameron.
The leader of the Her Majesty’s Opposition was just pathetic.
Have a look at this!
http://tinyurl.com/cz3ewc
I think i need a tub of oikment for my fingers after this weekend typing! 🙂
When things are falling apart try and see the funnyside! 😆
Ah well, if the News of the World allegations are backed up by the internationally famed and respected “Nick Clegg = Neil Kinncok” blogsite, then they must be true, I guess…….
As previously, I don’t know whether they are true or not. Doubt they are. But if they are, it’s obviously serious.
I notice the second story on the Nick Clegg = Neil Kinnock blog, argues the LibDems are actually Nazis.
And I thought the 9/11 “truth campaigners” were the maddest people in cyberspace…..
» Mark Littlewood Says:
11th May 2009 at 1:25 am
😆
Read the Mail on Sunday story – I thought it far fetched myself but the Nazi’s wanted to revive under a non-military solution which involved the pooling of economic soverienty and a re-unification of Germany. Both of which happened.
I laughed to start with until it said that many European countries had political institutions infiltrated by this Neo-Nazi clique to take us all over.
The Liberal Democrat party are the most Pro-European party in the UK! Therefore the Nazis might have infiltrated your ranks to try and build a consensus in the middle ground of politics around ever more pooled soverienty! Then once they have got sufficient power make a move toward raising Nazi ideology. What better chance than in the worst economic slump since the 1930’s! 🙁
Sounds far fetched but don’t knock it until you read the evidence! 😆
Well, Martin….very interesting, but you’ll have to forgive me.
I have an urgent appointment on planet Earth.
Mark,
No I dont want that to be our core message, I am rather speaking as somebody who works in politics and sees actually no reward for it financially speaking so I guess that slants my view a little on this but I am also thinking that certain things need to be made clear in this debate (like the fact that alot of MP’s exspense money goes on staff) and that these people could become the innocent victims of this tone.
Your right that Jo Swinson has only put her exspenses online tonight but it is something that Nick Clegg should be telling all our MPs to do forthwith. I rather suspect we will have our turn to be honest just purely because of the media climate and the trajectory I think its taking.
Just as an addendum, all I am saying Mark is that a little rationality needs to be injected into this debate, the tone does need to be lowered somewhat in the sense that we say ‘yes things are wrong, they need fixing’ but we also need to remember that not everybody in politics is corrupt…something along those lines is what I have in mind…
This ‘Martin Day’ Character also happens to run another smear blog against Huhne. I’d say he’s a Tory version of Draper/McBride.
In the sense of condoned by the party? I really doubt it. Even the Tory bloggers think he’s a nutter.
If recycling old press releases is a good way of writing a blog, then “Martin Day” is clearly an expert!
I actually agree with Mark to a point on this one – I’d expect any dodgy claimants to be removed from front bench responsbilities and to stand down at the election, but not have the whip removed – for good or ill, they were elected as Lib Dems and I’m not sure we want to go this far.
For me, the main concern in the NOTW leak is about Rennard’s apparent salary – should we be paying the chief executive a salary that’s higher than the leader? I realise that’s probably what he’d get in the private sector (and there are a number of organisations who’d nab him) but still…
For the record, I have been publishing my detailed expense returns on my website quarterly since the start of the last finanaical year, as have many Lib Dem MPs.
What is new is putting that together with links to what I have done and said in Parliament on the expenses issue, and an explanation of my views on the wider issue. I have been working on this new page for a few weeks now and tweeted the link last night as it seemed so topical it might be of interest.
“a relatively inoffensive £9.99 toilet brush holder from Homebase.”
I’m sure someone, somewhere, can find a politically correct reason to be offended by a toilet brush holder.
“Martin Day” is the result of someone not taking their medication. He’s one of the most annoying and absurd posters on PB.com
“I’m sure someone, somewhere, can find a politically correct reason to be offended by a toilet brush holder.”
Smithy in Gavin & Stacey 🙂
In respect of evidence of his expenses claims it’s quite easy to check them online here:
http://www.parliament.uk/about_lords/holallowances/hol_expenses04.cfm
The figures seem to be right he has claimed over £40k in overnight subsistence allowances since records began and most of that was in 2 years (about £20k each), including last year (07/08). No 2008/09 yet, so there could be more to come.
So the question on ‘has he committed a fraud’, rests on whether or not his ‘main residence’ was outside London in those periods. (On that note it doesn’t look good for him that he, unlike other peers, has deliberately concealed the location of his main residence on these expenses reports)
Surely he should issue a statement immediately to clarify that his main residence is Eastbourne, and explain some of the compelling counter-evidence produced by the NOTW?
If he can’t do that, then surely he has to resign. There would then be a clear conflict of interest here between his behaviour and the party’s campaigning against sleaze and for reform.
His only defense so far (in the article) amounts to little more than saying that the Parliamentary authorities didn’t notice anything was wrong. I don’t find that convincing, particularly not when you consider the Lords operate a ‘trust’ system on residency claims. I.e. Peers are assumed to be honest until proved otherwise, so unless Rennard volunteered an explanation of why Eastbourne not London is his main residence, or someone complained, there would be no basis for the Parliamentary authorities to investigate the matter.
What are the ‘personal conduct’ allegations about Lord Rennard that Guido was insinuating on Sunday?
We must never, ever forget that numerous MPs made massive efforts to cover this information up and not allow it to be published.
Eg:
“The problem, however, is that requests under the Freedom of Information Act
are becoming increasingly intrusive, particularly on issues such as the
additional costs allowance. In that respect, they are getting into very personal realms—they are going behind the front door and into Members’ homes. I have
found myself having to defend Members on the radio against the proposition that
the public have the right to know exactly what is spent in each bedroom of their
homes if the money is claimed under the additional costs allowance. That is too
intrusive and is going too far.”
Nick Harvey MP – 7th Feb 2007
If we had the opportunity to examine Screws reporters’ expenses claims, I wonder what we might find? “Beer, cigarettes, malt whisky, sessions with underage sex slaves”? How is Mr Murdoch’s money spent, we might ask?
Seriously, how can the Screws know where Lord Rennard spends his time? Do they camp outside his house, or have they placed a transponder under his car?
Lord Rennard has never struck me as a breadhead. He is a guy who lives, sleeps and breathes campaigning for the Lib Dems, and as long as he can pay the bills, I don’t think he gives too hoots about his bank balance.
True, some of our MPs have made money. But they have done so honestly, not by fiddling expenses. Tories (who worship money in much the same way that Christians worship God) should admire this.
“How is Mr Murdoch’s money spent, we might ask?”
You might, but he’s not either a peer or an elected member of Parliament claiming public money.
“Seriously, how can the Screws know where Lord Rennard spends his time?”
I’d imagine by investigating the evidence, and testing consistency with the rules.
It’s pretty hard to see how someone who works full-time for the party in Cowley Street and has had the same Vauxhall address since 1998 can have a ‘main residence’ that is in Eastbourne. Particularly if as they say it’s a holiday flat whilst the London property is a big house…
And it certainly looks lovely from the photos
http://jonathanwallace.blogspot.com/search?q=rennard+bbq
Almost every reference I can find to Rennard and his home on the Internet refers to London.
Eastbourne is also a 2 hour commute from Westminster. For Rennard to live there most of the time (what most of us understand by a ‘main residence’), he would need to be commuting daily for about two-thirds of the year whilst commuting to Vauxhall weekly to stay during the Parliamentary session in the remaining third. If he does that he should say so.
Otherwise he’d be mostly living in Vauxhall… a larger house… at which point how exactly can he claim Eastbourne is his main home…?
“Lord Rennard has never struck me as a breadhead.”
Didn’t he get given a peerage in the first place as a sop to stop him going off to the private sector when on a lowly Campaign Director’s wage?
“True, some of our MPs have made money. But they have done so honestly, not by fiddling expenses.”… we hope, Telegraph hasn’t done us yet.
As I’ve said previously, we should set up an internal (but not secretive) panel to review all our honourable members & peers (it’s not as though we have hundreds):
minor errors = gentle reminder
significant errors/ greedy claims = repay in full +10% to charity
outright fiddling = ‘bye ‘bye
End of story.
Oh, and Alix, moles are not rodents, they’re of the Insectivora.
Mr Berry, odd that you should say that Chris Rennard has lived in Vauxhall since 1998, when I distinctly recall that he was living in a suburb of Reading (Wokingham DC, as it then was) and commuting to London on a daily basis around that time.
Three facts:-
(1) I can reach Eastbourne in under one and a half hours by car (about the same time it takes me to get to my present job).
(2) Chris is not the only person ever to have commuted to London from Eastbourne. The former trade union leader, Sir John Boyd, did. And doubtless readers will know of others.
(3) Chris’s salary (and meagre savings) in 1998 would not have been sufficient to get him a mortgage on a house in Vauxhall.
An observation:
Vauxhall is not a very nice place to bring up children. Eastbourne is.
An opinion:
The Party owes more to Chris Rennard (the greatest campaigner of the second half of the 20th century) than to anyone else (Ashdown and Kennedy included).
Question:
Is the preceding the reason why Chris is being smeared by Murdoch?
😆 To the comments above!
Glad to see i get under your skin so! 🙂
With regards to Mental illness – the fact that I said the Nazi/ LD theory was outlandish is a key sign that someone is not ill. People who are mentally ill cannot rationally look at something from two points of view. Given some of RodCrosby’s views on PB – the Nazi theory would have good credence!!!!
With regard to the LD’s – I think you lot are mentally ill if you think you are going to retain all your current seats. Your are doomed – DOOMED! 😆
With regard to Alix – please say which Tories think i am a “Nutter”?
» KL Says:
11th May 2009 at 8:54 am
With regard to recycling things Look at LDV today with a post on Norman Bakers three press stories on MP sleaze! In actual fact you will find most of the stuff I write is original or pictures i photoshop where as most blogs are cartblanche re-reporting the News!
» Edwin Loo Says:
11th May 2009 at 4:39 am This ‘Martin Day’ Character also happens to run another smear blog against Huhne. I’d say he’s a Tory version of Draper/McBride
😆 If you think this is a smear Blog you need your head examining!
http://chrishuhneisdoomed-doomedtodefeat.blogspot.com/
Interesting what Jo Swinson says on her publication of expenses (and my apologies for implying that she’d only just made them public – when it seems she has only just made them public in this particular format).
I have no reason to doubt what she says about many other LD MPs also publishing their expenses – in which acse it shoudl be easy to deduce which LD MPs, if any, might be in the firing line.
I think the crucial point about expenses claims made by NotW journos has already been rebutted. they are not public servants. They are not spending taxpayers money. If Rupert Murdoch wants to pay them to reshingle their driveway, fix their tennis courts or have a spare house in Southampton so they can hang out with their partner, that’s up to him.
There’s no need for hysteria as Darrell says. But at the same time, I think it is almost impossible to overestimate public outrage at what has happened.
I have just heard Theresa May for the Tories and Whats-her-name Thornberry from Labour on Radio 5. Neither was prepared to criticise the specific actions and behaviour of their Parliamentary colleagues (or “comrades” as Thornberry rather laughbaly called her fellow Labour MPs). They came across terribly.
“odd that you should say”
It’s what the Paper has said “The lord has had the home since 1998.”
Presumably if they got that wrong he would have demand a correction and issued a statement about it. And surely it’s easy to get that kind of information from the land registry if you’ve got the address.
The article also refers to Wokingham, presumably in reference to the £22k overnights claim in 2003/04. Whilst a commute from there is entirely plausible, why did he only claim to be living in Wokingham in that one year, not the previous or subsequent. It’s a little odd don’t you think? Particularly given his period of living there would have to almost exactly match the financial year to make the claim that high.
I.e.: main residence 31st March 2002 – London, April 1st – 31st March 2003 – Wokingham, 1st April – London… I’m sure if there’s a perfectly good explanation for that, Lord Rennard will provide it.
“I can reach Eastbourne in under one and a half hours by car”
From Central London, in rush-hour? have you considered making money from selling your motoring secrets, that’s fantastic.
“Chris is not the only person ever to have commuted to London from Eastbourne”
No, but as yet he hasn’t made any statement on whether he does that or not, and I would be very intrigued how he managed to only claim £600 for travel expenses in 2007/08 if he was doing a regular commute on Parliamentary business from Eastbourne when the rail ticket costs about £20 each way that would be about 15 days travel only, he’s claimed for nearly 130 days allowances that year.
And if he was driving wouldn’t he claim the inner London parking (about £30-£50 a day?)
“Chris’s salary (and meagre savings) in 1998 would not have been sufficient to get him a mortgage on a house in Vauxhall”
Have you heard of Lady Rennard given you’ve known him so long.
“The Party owes more to Chris Rennard (the greatest campaigner of the second half of the 20th century) than to anyone else”
I’m sure, how exactly is that relevant to whether or not the rules have been flouted for personal gain and what action should be taken if they have? I’m pretty sure the test is not ‘guilty until proven important’
“Is the preceding the reason why Chris is being smeared by Murdoch?”
It’s a smear if it’s not true. Where’s Rennard’s rebuttal?
What I’ve seen so far is the evasive NOTW quote and now a Liverpool Post story. I have to say I find this comment by him quite worrying:
“Peers are not paid any salary or pension for their work. But you are allowed to claim an allowance for a London property whilst maintaining a home outside London as in my case.”
The rules are here:
http://www.parliament.uk/about_lords/holallowances/hol_explanatory08.cfm
What they actually say is:
“Members whose main residence is outside Greater London may claim for expenses of overnight accommodation in London while away from their only or main residence. A Member whose main residence is outside Greater London and who maintains a residence in London for the purpose of attending sittings of the House may claim this allowance towards the cost of maintaining such a residence.”
I.e. what matters is which house is your “main residence”.
To say you are allowed to claim the allowance purely if you are “maintaining a home outside London”, i.e. a holiday flat or empty property is clearly not true. That home has to be your “main residence” and the London property used for the purpose of attending sittings of the House.
I appreciate you admire the man but it really does not look good… where is his statement explaining all these anomalies?
Neil Berry offers textbook illustrations of two of the classic techniques of gutter journalism and Tory smear-mongering:-
(1) He demands evidence in support of a defense which he doesn’t consider necessary to collect when making the allegation which is the subject of the defense.
If I have to search the Land Registry to cast doubt on Lord Rennard owning a house in Vauxhall in 1998, then surely by the same token Neil Berry is required to do so in order to allege that he did?
(2) He imposes silence upon the accused. He commands us to accept the absence of an immediate rebuttal as an admission of guilt on Lord Rennard’s part. Might it not be prudent for Lord Rennard to keep his mouth shut until he has consulted his solicitors?
If Lord Rennard gets round to issuing proceedings, I trust he won’t be stopping with Murdoch, but will go after all those who have maliciously republished Murdoch’s libel.
If (when) this happens, see how fast Neil Berry’s Tory masters drop him.
As for Murdoch’s staff, surely the public interest is served by exposing the filthy lifestyles and vile personal habits of these creeps and scumbags who lecture us on our morals in his comic every Sunday?
Mark Littlewood, are you saying it is OK for private sector employees to be lavish with expenses, but not public servants?
Public sector staff are paid for through taxation and public borrowing. Private sector staff are paid for through the price of the goods and services they produce, and in Murdoch’s case, the cost of advertising in his newspapers.
So, Mr Littlewood. Next time you have to pay over the odds for air travel because Murdoch has upped the advertising cost, you’ll be quite happy, since it’s coming directly from your pocket, not by way of the public purse?
Sesenco,
I don’t know anything at all on Chris’s living arrangements, so don’t know the facts of the case.
You’re fundamentally wrong on the privacy rights that should be accorded to journalists though. Even if they do work for the NotW.
My god you illiberals are so up your own back side’s,you forget that you are liberals democrats.The abuse at martin day is shameful,this man has very good claims why you should be called the illiberal democrats and if you have any thing liberal or democrat about you,the abusers should apologize.I’am waiting now on the telegraph to see the porkers in the illiberal party.
I’m afraid you’re drifting into hysterics and personal abuse Sesenco.
If you have some personal reason for not wishing Lord Rennard’s case to be discussed rationally that is your own business, however let’s see what he has to say when he issues a proper statement.
I can only recommend he does that soon, as the publicly available evidence above looks dreadful for him and the party.
Mark, how “private” are Murdoch’s journalists’ expenses claims to those whom Murdoch owes a fiduciary duty – ie, News International’s shareholders? And how “private” are they to people considering investing in said company?
The problem with MPs’ salaries and expenses is that both are set by MPs themselves, and should not be.
Neil Berry, what is “rational” about failing to follow the rules of natural justice? Chris Rennard’s silence to date cannot be taken as an admission of guilt. He is entitled to seek and obtain legal advice before he says a word to anyone. Check Lord Diplock’s definition of “irrationality” in the GCHQ case and match it against your own conduct in this matter.
Hey, look how fast Neil Berry backtracks from his denial of natural justice to Lord Rennard while accusing me of “drifting into hysterics”. Says it all.
Whatever the truth or falsehood of these allegations, their timing is highly dubious. Was it just the NOTW desperate to find something to publish in competition with the Telegraph? Or is it that the Tories and Labour feel the desperate need to share out the bad stories with someone else?
Backtrack? Sorry I just thought your latest comment was a throwaway remark. But if you wish a response:
The ‘natural justice’ position at the moment, as I understand it, is that the NOTW has accused Lord Rennard of claiming at least £41k to which is he not entitled.
There is evidence in their article, the public records and from the known circumstances of his employment to suggest he may have a case to answer as they state. It is certainly not obvious where the NOTW have got this wrong.
His response so far has been to claim
a) that Parliamentary authorities have no problem with his arrangements &
b) that it’s o.k. to claim this allowance if you are ‘maintaining’ a property outside London
As noted above the problem with (a) is that Lords expenses operate on a ‘trust’ system, unless someone complains or Rennard describes his arrangements in detail, the Parliamentary authorities have no basis to protest. It is not then a denial, only a description of the reality that regulation of expenses is lax. The onus appears to be on the taxpayer to prove something is unwarranted rather than the peer to prove that it is warranted. That is clearly not a ‘naturally just’ situation and the party has been campaigning to reverse it.
The problem with (b) is that it is incorrect, the rules very clearly state that the location of your “main residence” determines entitlement to this money. If your main residence is in Greater London you are not entitled. In that regard he is either mistaken or has been untruthful. That is not clever.
So it is entirely fair to ask him to make a clear statement.
I’m further not sure he needs legal advice for that, unless someone is suggesting he should be subject to a criminal trial for this. At the moment all he and the party have a public relations problem.
Sesenco, Berry was rightly putting questions forward, you were not. You were simply being incredibly subjective-like the MP’s about a situation that should be discussed in COMPLETE objectivity.
That’s why he called you ‘irrational’. You were being to emotive on issue that needs your objectivity as a juror.
And come on, how long have you been in the game?
Name me one politician/MP who has remained gallantly silent when smears were made about him/her? Smears that proved to be smears?
Because as a bright man, surely you know that people can sue for smears, thus it’s in Chris’s interest to get this allegations retracted because it has reputable concequences. What happens after that is it goes to court and Chris will win money-libel damages.
So lets hope this will be the case as you so passionately and far too subjectively have contested.
Although I agree about what Chris has done and so does Berry, we’re not Chris’s enemy Sesenco, we’re obviously Liberal Democrats and want this to be WRONG.
Okay?
Good.
Neither Neil Berry nor Ranter’s Paradise has a clue what he is talking about.
Neil Berry should check the meaning of “natural justice” in any reputable law dictionary. Lord Reid in Ridge v Baldwin gives a basic run-down of the old authorities.
Nautral justice requires that Lord Rennard be allowed to consult his legal advisers before making a public statement about allegations published in a tabloid newspaper. Neil Berry, in opposition, insists that his partial silence thus far is an admission of guilt.
You can certainly sue for smears, Rantersparadise. But you can’t do it overnight. You have to instruct a solicitor, then you have to arrange a conference with Counsel. Then his solicitor has to pass the file to his firm’s litigation department to draft proceedings. And it costs a lot of money.
People ignorant of the law who pontificate about it in public invariably make asses of themselves, as you have both done.
Sesenco
The problem is the news cycle doesn’t operate on the same “grindeth slowly but exceedinly fine” approach as the law
I think Darrell has a point here. The whole thing is indeed beginning to resemble a witchhunt. Not that I have any sympathy for MPs who overclaim expenses. My concern is that this media-driven furore misdirects our attention from the much more heinous things that politicians do; such as starting illegal wars and extinguishing our civil liberties.
I am sorry to disappoint those baying for palm tree justice, but “it was within the rules” is a perfectly good defence. It is the rules that are wrong, and they need changing. In fact, they should never have been created in the first place.
Yes, there are a lot of sleazy, lying hypocrites in the House of Commons who couldn’t resist the opportunity to wallow in the trough. There are also some very wicked people whose goal is to deliver world domination to a tiny North American elite. Which category is the more dangerous, and which is at risk of emerging unscathed from ExpensesGate?
“I am sorry to disappoint those baying for palm tree justice, but “it was within the rules” is a perfectly good defence.”
If they find themselves in court, of course it will be a “perfectly good defence”. But in the court of public opinion – to coin a phrase – it will be perfectly useless.
About on a par with your standpoint that Lord Rennard has the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise, but that you have the right to accuse the News of the World of libel, without a shred of evidence that its claims were untrue.
Why has Clegg apologised? Is it a pre-emptive strike?
The point both Ranter and Neil were making to you Sesenco is that this is only ‘within the rules’ if Rennard can provide a sensible explanation for how his holiday flat in Eastbourne rather than his family home in Vauxhall is his ‘main residence’.
Otherwise you must also be accepting that Labour peer Baroness Uddin did nothing wrong by claiming £100k for an empty flat while living in her family home in London.
I’m not convinced:
http://rainbowherbicide.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-case-against-rennard/
“the much more heinous things that politicians do; such as starting illegal wars and extinguishing our civil liberties.”
Sorry – I think this is more heinous than Iraq.
Iraq was a decision taken openly – Parliament voted to go to war – and a substantial amount of the information on which that decision was based was put into the public domain. You can disagree with it (I do) but the process was a legitimate one. Any illegality is based on international not domestic law.
The expenses was a situation where Parliament set up (deliberately) and operated a system designed to provide MPs with a significant financial advantage without exposing it to much public scrutiny.
Then when people did try to examine what was going on they used all the powers of Parliament to hinder that investigation.
Furthermore EVERY MP knew what was going on and practically no-one spoke out about it until the scale of what was happening was being exposed. Some actively obstructed attempts at exposure (and sadly that number includes at least one Lib Dem)
This is a more serious matter precisely because MPs weren’t breaking the rules. The corruption became institutionalised by setting up a set of rules to benefit the MPs, not the interests of those who they serve.
What an intriguing and insightful post from Hywel. I also happen to agree with it in many ways.
The scale of institutionalised corruption is simply amazing. Not necessarily illegal (would hard to be, as they wrote the law themselves!).
But tortously hard to square with public service.
Still no statement from Lord Rennard…
Rennard has claimed in respect of at least 80% of the days he attended the House of Lords. It would surprising if his domestic habits were significantly different on the days he attended his other job in London. So I see no reason to doubt the evidence presented by the News of the World, that he is a very infrequent visitor to Eastbourne.
But isn’t the problem that there is no definition of what is meant by the “main residence” of a member of the House of Lords? That being the case, Rennard won’t have broken the letter of the rules, even if it turns out he is only at Eastbourne for two weeks a year.
Clegg’s difficulty is going to be how to deal with those who have broken the spirit of the rules, as – to all appearances – Lord Rennard has. I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the public anger at this kind of thing, and try to sweep it under the carpet.
@ sesenco
“But you can’t do it overnight.”
Are you mad?
Why would I not KNOW that??
Do you think most of us don’t know lawyers, considering 3/4 of our MP’s are actually them!?
The world of media works very diff to the layman world. NO ONE is disputing how long it will take, no, we KNOW but to ‘act upon’ doesn’t take that long…esp with something as heavily libel as accusing what the NOTW are accusing.
Anyhow, you’re taking this far to personally.
Like I logically said, as we’re ALL obv sympathetic to with the Lib Dems…we want this to NOT be true and therefore HOPE it is not.
A few people were simply making cases instead of rolling around twisting on the floor on our back, waiting patiently to be tickled and told to fetch.
And, I’m not a ‘he’.
Thank you.
Anonny1
I agree the ‘main residence’ question is crucial but it’s not as ambiguous as you think. The full rule-book is here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldpeers/ldpeers.pdf
And the passage relevant to Rennard is
“4.4.2 A Member whose main residence is outside Greater London and who maintains a residence in London for the purpose of attending sittings of the House may claim this allowance towards the cost of maintaining such a residence.”
The definitive part seems to me to be the part that refers to “maintaining a residence in London for the purpose of attending sitting of the House”
In that regard it is clearly not the case that your ‘second home’ can be subsidised if it has main purposes other than attending Parliament. Such main purposes might not then include
– acting as a base for your full-time job in Westminster
– acting as a campaign HQ for by-elections and party work
– acting as a location for ‘lavish’ staff parties from your full-time job
– acting as a home for most of the year for you and your family outside the Parliamentary sessions (which are around 160 days a year)
Even then if the Parliamentary authorities do not spontaneously investigate or reach any conclusions on this it’s actually remarkably easy for Nick, Cameron and so on to deal with those who have broken the ‘spirit’ if not the letter of the rules.
All parties and most organisations have a clause in their membership and staff rules about “bringing the organisation into disrepute”. I.e. causing others to reasonably hold you and your office in low esteem due to your conduct.
The penalties for disrepute vary but can involve sacking, suspension of membership, withdrawal of the whip etc. Our party will have a process for investigating such complaints like any other. Has anyone complained?
If they do, what the Party shouldn’t allow is letting him get away with claiming that it’s a matter for Parliament.
His membership of the House of Lords is a matter for Parliament. His conduct and bearing on the reputation of the party and office of Chief Executive is a matter for the Party.
This is why his comments about following the rules and then misreporting what those rules actually are is so unwise.
The main issue for the party is disrepute. If his behaviour is actually reputable, and obviously so, he should issue a statement to that effect as fast as possible.
Anonymous:
(1)
You are being economical with the truth. Nowhere have I accused the “News of the Screws” of libel (though the courts have held this rag to have libelled others on numerous occasions).
(2)
I have a problem with your reference to the “court of public opinion”, by which it seems you mean the lynch mob. (The “News of the Scews” adopted a similar posture when it came perilously close to inciting its readers to murder Robert Thompson and Jon Venables.)
(3)
The trouble with arguments based on the “spirit” of a rule is that it can be mightily difficult to determine what that “spirit” is. It could easily be argued in the present case that the expenses rules were formulated as a device to enable MPs to grab as much as they can carry.
It is plainly unacceptable that in the present day-and-age Members of Parliament should be subject to these gentleman’s club rules. Salaries and expenses should be determined and policed by an independent body. This will probably now happen, but only after the reputation of Parliament has suffered irreparable harm.
Hywel Morgan:
Try telling the families of those butchered in Iraq that MPs overclaiming expenses is a more heinous act than starting an illegal war.
And no, Blair and his cronies didn’t stick to the domestic law. They lied to Parliament, they published fabricated “intelligence”, and they covered up the murder of a British scientist by agents of a foreign power.
Dick Cheney has you exactly where he wants you, Hywel.
Sesenco wrote:
“You are being economical with the truth. Nowhere have I accused the “News of the Screws” of libel (though the courts have held this rag to have libelled others on numerous occasions).”
Well, you wrote previously:
“If Lord Rennard gets round to issuing proceedings, I trust he won’t be stopping with Murdoch, but will go after all those who have maliciously republished Murdoch’s libel.”
So unless you were referring to some other Murdoch, rather than the owner of the News of the World, please have the decency to take back your remark about my being “economical with the truth”.
And perhaps you can make your own position clear. Even if you are trying to back-pedal on the libel accusation, are you really saying that you believe Rennard’s “main residence” is in Eastbourne in the sense that – for example – he spends more nights of the year there than at his house in London?
We all know that – human nature being what it is – in any system there are going to be some individuals who abuse the rules to their own advantage. What is depressing is the tendency of some party members to rally round and defend that behaviour.
Anonymous, do you understand English? I was referring to the hypothetical, as anyone can see. Also, I am amazed that you consider the “News of the Screws” to be a reputable newspaper. Have you forgotten about the photographer they employed who had a conviction for blowing up a Chinese restaurant (which the “Screws” knew full well)? And the guy who procured rather young girls for famous people? Just what is your connection to News International?
Sesenco
Hmmm. So you claim what you meant is something like “If Rennard won a libel suit …”?
If so, you’d have done better to write that. Obviously as it stands what you wrote describes the News of the World report, unconditionally, as a libel.
But perhaps we’re making some progress. Despite appearances you’re not claiming the report is untrue.
So I’ll ask again. Do you really find it plausible, given the evidence you’ve seen, that Rennard’s “main residence” is in Eastbourne in the sense that – for example – he spends more nights of the year there than at his house in London?
And by the way, Sesenco, when you say I “consider the “News of the Screws” to be a reputable newspaper”, that’s sheer invention on your part, because I’ve said no such thing.
If you’re accusing other people of being “economical with the truth”, you’d be well advised not to make up lies yourself.
No, I didn’t mean that, either, Anonymous. I said that if the “Screws” has libelled Lord Rennard, and Lord Rennard sues, it would be very nice to see Murdoch and his disreputable smutsheet taken to the cleaners.
There isn’t any “evidence” against Lord Rennard, just an allegation published in a newspaper notorious for its lack of interest in the literal truth.
I don’t know if the report is true or untrue. What I do know is that the newspaper making the allegation is unworthy of belief.
Notice how you and your fellow trolls are singing from a subtly similar songsheet:-
(1) You demand that we accept everything publsihed in the “News of the Screws” as true.
(2) You assume Lord Rennard’s guilt.
(3) You deny Lord Rennard the opportunity to defend himself.
Who wrote your songsheet, Anonymous?
Senesco
No. You made no such qualification when you described the report as a libel.
Nor have I said any of the things you claim I have.
There’s no polite way of saying it. You are making up lies.
Anonymous1, two questions:-
(1) Who are you? (Are you and Neil Berry one and the same person, perhaps?)
(2) What is the reason for your relentless trolling? (Are you a Conservative Party activist, for instance?)
If you are indeed speaking in support of the Tory Party, I think David Cameron will be horrified to learn of your contempt for due process and natural justice.
Sesenco
Like you, I choose not to post under my real name here. But I can assure you that there is not one iota of truth in any of your ridiculous suggestions about my identity and motivation.
If you think that crying “troll!” and playing such childish games is an appropriate response to people who are concerned about parliamentary expenses, then you have misjudged the public mood very badly indeed.
Not like me, Anonymous1. I have a politically sensitive job, so can’t use my real name. But people who know me knwo who I am, and my mugshot is real.
You (under your various guises) seem to have a lot of spare time to troll on LDV. Maybe your Tory friends could reward you by geting you a proper job.
Question: Why has no reputable newspaper (if there is such a thing) picked up on the “Screws” attack on Lord Rennard? Could it be that they have looked into it and have discovered it to be a farrago of innuendoes?
PS: What does the “public mood” have to say about anonymous trolls?
I don’t have “various guises”. You are simply making up lies. If you really believe this nonsense, ask the site-owners to run a check on my IP address.
You ask why no “reputable” newspaper has picked up on the allegation in the News of the World (I assume you classify the Liverpool Echo and the Liverpool Daily Post as “disreputable”!). One might as well ask why neither Rennard nor Cowley Street has issued a statement denying the accuracy of the report that Rennard lives mainly in London.
The point is that, regardless of anything the NoTW has claimed, we know that Rennard has a house in London and a full-time job in London, and that on at least 80% of the days he attended the House of Lords he stayed the night in London. Do you really find it credible that his normal practice was to commute daily from Eastbourne to London?
http://momentsofc.blogspot.com/2008/06/tactical-ineptitude-and-unprincipled.html?showComment=1213360500000#c8253002478451726797
Enough said really.
Ah, now we know why you hide your identity, Anonymous1. You spend your nights concealed in the bushes outside Lord Rennard’s house watching his every move. You sound a sad little man, Mr Berry.
BTW, Lord Rennard will speak when he choses to, not when an anonymous troll or a North American billionaire tell him to.
Sesenco:
“Ah, now we know why you hide your identity, Anonymous1. You spend your nights concealed in the bushes outside Lord Rennard’s house watching his every move.”
Eh? If you’re referring to the 80% of nights spent in London, it was simply a matter of dividing the £17,000 of public money claimed for overnight subsistence by Rennard last year by the number of days he attended the Lords, and comparing with the maximum permitted per day.
I’m afraid the hysterical and abusive character of your posts speaks volumes. You may not think parliamentary expenses claims are a matter of legitimate public concern, but it’s evident that the public doesn’t agree with you.
This is what Lord Rennard actually says:-
“The basis of all my claims has been specifically approved by the House of Lords authorities.
“All peers’ claims, and the rules governing them, have been on the internet for some years. Peers are not paid any salary or pension for their work. But you are allowed to claim an allowance for a London property whilst maintaining a home outside London as in my case.
“I think that there should be a new system for paying peers through transparent taxable allowances. Otherwise the Lords will be completely dominated by the rich and the retired who are able to live in London.”
As we can see, the details of Lord Rennard’s expenses claims were on the House of Lords website all along. Why did the “Screws” wait until this moment to spin a smear out of it?
“As we can see, the details of Lord Rennard’s expenses claims were on the House of Lords website all along. Why did the “Screws” wait until this moment to spin a smear out of it?”
Well, at a guess, the timing of the story probably had something to do with all the press coverage of parliamentary expenses over the past few days!
One curious feature is that members are eligible for overnight subsistence only if their main residence is outside Greater London, but entries in the column showing the county in which the main residence lies “are voluntary”. I’m not sure whether this means they don’t have to tell the parliamentary authorities where their main residence is, or they don’t have to tell the public.
Whatever it means, Lord Rennard is one of a small minority of members who withhold the location of their main residence. Which in itself seems rather odd in an advocate of a “transparent” system.
The other odd thing is that Chris Rennard is registered to vote at an address in London SW9, but doesn’t appear – at least on the edited version of the electoral register – at any address in Eastbourne, and has not appeared at any such address for at least seven years.
Surely it would be most remiss of Chris Rennard – of all people! – to have omitted to register himself to vote at his Eastbourne address, if it was indeed his main residence…
Nine days on, and the Federal Executive met yesterday, and we still have not a whisper from the party about the allegations against Lord Rennard.
No statement that they’re being investigated, let alone any statement that they have been investigated and found true or false.
It’s not as if the members of the executive can be unaware of the situation – Alix Mortimer apparently emailed them all, and then Liberal Vision quoted part of her email, mashed up with random LDV posts, and then there was a heated debate about the netiquette of it all.
So what on earth is going on?