Liberal Vision

Ros Scott refuses to respond on expenses questions

More anonymous e-mails bouncing around this morning.

We are now informed that Ros Scott has refused to respond to the letter from “Agent Orange”, stating:

“I have a strict policy of not responding to anonymous communications”

Fair enough – but it doesn’t elucidate much for the rest of us.

So, at Liberal Vision we thought we would help by putting a real person on the end of the queries to Ros. Here’s an open letter sent to Ros this morning:

Dear Baroness Ros Scott,

Following comments made on Liberal Democrat Voice claiming that there is going to be no internal audit of Liberal Democrat peers’ expenses, and that Cowley Street has said they “do not find any grounds for believing that Lord Rennard has broken any rules regarding Lords Allowances”, I would like to ask if there is any truth in these comments.

In other words: is there (or has there been) any kind of internal party audit regarding the expenses allegations made against several Liberal Democrat peers, including Lord Rennard?

Yours faithfully,

Sara Scarlett
Liberal Democrat Member

End of letter.

Let’s hope we get some clarification on this issue before long.

Is there any review of LD peers’ expenses?

Anonymous blogger “Agent Orange” has sent the following letter to Lib Dem President Ros Scott:




Baroness Scott,

In a debate about dealing with sleaze on Liberal Democrat Voice a poster has made the following claims:

“We are still waiting for Party President Baroness Scott to provide a report on how the party is progressing with an ‘independent’ audit of peers expenses. Her silence is hardly inspiring confidence.”

That’s because there isn’t going to be – and there never was going to be – an independent audit of Lib Dem peers expenses. The independent review referred to in Ros Scott’s statement in May was – it turned out – nothing to do with the party, but a review of peers’ allowances in general, set up by the House of Lords itself. Apparently it’s now going to be conducted by the Senior Salaries Review Body.

When I enquired about this to Cowley Street, I was told initially that “There is no reason to “clear” Liberal Democrat Peers of impropriety because no-one has been accused of impropriety” and then – when I pointed out that very specific accusations of impropriety had been made – that they “do not find any grounds for believing that Lord Rennard has broken any rules regarding Lords Allowances”.

So it’s pretty clear that no further action is going to be taken by the party on this.

Could you then kindly clarify first whether this is correct interpretation of your May statement where you said:

“Following publication, Lords McNally and Shutt will undertake a through review of expenses and allowances in the House of Lords which will draw on the work to be undertaken by the independent external assessor who is to be appointed immediately.”

I.e. is it correct that the party has no intention of carrying out any audit or assessment, independent or otherwise, of any peers expenses, and is refusing as a minimum to even consider investigating the very serious fraud allegations laid out in national newspapers against Lord Rennard, Lord Dykes, and Baroness Northover, all of whom it is suggested, to greater or lesser degrees, have falsely claimed a main residence outside London when living in the capital most of the year.

And further could you clarify whether the statement about Lord Rennard above is now the official position of the Federal party. And if so on what basis and what depth of investigation you made into his matter that led you to conclude you could not ‘find any grounds’?.

If you need assistance in this matter I believe the Sunlight Centre for Open Politics have found sufficient grounds to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee.

Following 2 months of silence I think we’d all like to be reassured that you have taken these allegations seriously and have put in place a proper process to investigate them.

Yours Sincerely,

Agent Orange
http://rainbowherbicide.wordpress.com/

Land of the free, home of Bud Light

The United States of America is – by some considerable margin – my favourite country in the whole wide world. This is, in no small part, because it has individual freedom and personal responsibility in its very DNA. That’s why I was upset and disappointed to experience first hand yesterday something I believed to be an urban myth.

Whilst sampling the delights of American high culture (i.e. spending the day at the Universal Studios amusement park in Orlando) in the oppressive Florida heat, my travelling companion and I felt the  urgent need for a refreshing beer. But – despite us both being over twice the legal age to consume alcohol in Britain – we needed to show our passports to seal the deal.

Bud Light is so p*ss weak, it would hard for a toddler to get drunk on it. If only America’s love of liberty wasn’t so curtailed by a major sprinkling of puritanism, it would be an even greater holiday destination.

Swine flu:the government making a pig’s ear of it

I read in the Sunday papers that our dearly beloved government is to issue urgent swine flu advice to pregnant women .

Expectant mothers will be urged to avoid unnecessary journeys and crowds…do not travel on trains and the London Underground at peak times…keep babies away from crowds…limit the movements of their other children, so they do not bring the virus home.

Good grief….Anyone would think that the Martians had landed and are feasting on babies and unborn foetuses.

All this week I ‘ve been bombarded with talk of a growing death count, inevitable further casualties, vulnerable groups (the old, the young and now pregnant women) and a much promised “flu vaccine”.

And call me an old cynic but I cant help thinking that this government is quite glad to have something they can terrify us all with. Whilst we are all facing our own mortality and monitoring those around us for the slightest hint of infection, we will forget about rising unemployment figures, dead soldiers killed in Afganistan, MPs expenses and a zero rise in economic growth and turn to our government and be thankful they are there to care for us in our hour of need. Give us the Tamiflu and we will vote you in next time we promise !

Think I am joking?  In case you missed i back in early July Andy Burnham reported to Parliament that “Scientists now expect to see rapid rises in the number of cases. Cases are doubling every week, and on this trend we could see more than 100,000 cases per day by the end of August—although I stress that that is only a projection” 

PANIC PANIC PANIC

(Hmmm … As the Effect Measure website points out (under the wonderful title “UK Health Minister: Expotentially Dumb“) …if cases double every week, then by the end of September, one month after Burnham’s estimate, they will have increased by a factor of 16 or 1.6 million cases per day. A month later, at the height of flu season we’d be seeing 25 million cases a day. I dont think so Mr Burnham… no I really dont.)

Oh and the Chief Medical Officer put the worst case scenario figure at 65,000  deaths in total a few days ago so who the hell knows! Not them clearly.

In our saner moments we all know this is rot ! We remember the  SARS pandemic that was going to kill us all and CJD that was going to devastate us (well it did the cattle farming industry I suppose).  Lets not be hoodwinked by these people (the government and the Chief Medical officer) again.

Yes there is a new virus and yes some people will be very ill and some will die (29 so far to be clear!). But is it too much to ask that we keep this in proportion and have a proportionate reaction from the government to it? Less alarmist talk and more clear-thinking, better planning and consistent communication to the healthcare professionals on the front line.

It is telling that  many GPs (whom I have considerably more faith in that the Chief Medical Officer) are actively critical of the government action thus far.

The Royal College of GP’s has criticised the government for conflicting and changing advice from government agencies to both doctors and patients, confusion over prescribing Tamiflu, (when it will be available, whether it works, who gets it), how long patients should stay at home if they have the virus, what hospital priorities should be etc

Professor Sheila Bird, senior scientist at the Medical Research Council’s Biostatistics Unit,  has said that not enough information is being collected about people ill in hospital or about those who die –  to verify the Government’s (extraordinarily alarming) estimates about infection rates.

Dr Sam Everington, (formerly deputy chair of the BMA) has said that scaremongering by the Dept of Health had seen the nation gripped with fear, leading to ‘utter chaos’ for practices in areas with the most number of cases.. ‘All this is being ratcheted up by the CMO and the Government. They are actively scaremongering everybody”.

British Medical Association GP leader Dr Laurence Buckman said people were “scared stiff” when they did not need to be ….swine flu for most was a nasty but relatively mild illness, however he said people were panicking and swamping doctors with calls.

So here we have it really. The Goverment making a bad situation a whole lot worse, causing wide spread panic and chaos. But how did they manage to make a pigs ear of this one ? I dont know if this is incompetence or deliberate intent to terrify, or both. Either way I suppose we should not be surprised. But angry. We should be angry. Surely?

Tags: Andy Burnham, swine flu

Liberal Vision statement on Chandila Fernando defection

Liberal Vision is very disappointed to read that Chamali and Chandila Fernando are joining the Conservatives.  While we respect their personal decisions, we believe that liberalism is best served with the Liberal Democrats and that David Cameron’s party will severely disappoint anyone expecting a liberal agenda.

Questions must still be asked about the Conservatives’ underlying beliefs on immigration, constitutional reform, the EU and even civil liberties. Meanwhile Cameron avoids all matters of substance, such as how to balance the UK’s budget during and after the recession.

In the run up to 1997, some Liberal Democrats such as Andrew Adonis were similarly enticed by the rhetoric and electoral advantage of Tony Blair’s New Labour. Yet in spite of the wave of optimism that surrounded their election, New Labour quickly turned into the illiberal machine of old. Who can say that Cameron’s government, should it come to fruition, will not be equally or even more disappointing?

For clarification: Chandila Fernando resigned from the Liberal Democrats many months ago. In doing so he automatically gave up his ties with Liberal Vision and has not been involved in our work this year.

Tags: Chandila Fernando, Conservatives