by Stephen Tall on May 23, 2009
On Tuesday evening, LDV emailed those Lib Dem party members signed-up to our private discussion forum inviting them to take part in a survey focusing on MPs’ expenses. Many thanks to the 240+ of you who have so far completed it; we’ve been publishing the results on LDV over the last few days. You can catch up on the results of all our past exclusive LDV members’ surveys by clicking here.
LDV asked: The following MPs have been named by the Telegraph in connection with the MPs’ expenses row. Please indicate those you believe – on the basis of what you have read, seen or heard – have questions still to answer (you may choose more than one):
Here’s what you said (in descending order):
=1. Ming Campbell – 31%
=1. Lembit Opik – 31%
=3. None of them – 26%
=3. Richard Younger-Ross – 26%
5. Julia Goldsworthy – 21%
6. Don’t know / Other – 20%
7. Andrew George – 18%
8. Chris Huhne – 13%
9. Nick Clegg – 9%
10. Nick Harvey – 5%
11. Norman Baker – 5%
12. Alan Reid – 3%
13. Steve Webb – 3%
14. Vince Cable – 2%
So, less than one-third of you think any one Lib Dem MP has questions to answer – Ming and Lembit both attracting 31% – while one-quarter of you believe none of them have any questions left to answer. On the face of it, our MPs might find some comfort in that finding.
LDV then asked: In the case of those Liberal Democrat MPs who have admitted making mistaken claims, apologised, and repaid the money to the taxpayer, do you believe that this should normally be…
Here’s what you said:
>> 27% – The end of the matter
>> 49% – It will have to do
>> 16% – It’s not nearly enough
>> 8% – Don’t know / Other
Some 76% of you are prepared, it seems, to draw a line under the affair, either willingly or grudgingly, so long as those Lib Dem MPs who’ve made mistakes have apologised and repaid the money. Just 16% view such a response as inadequate.
Finally, for today, LDV asked: Do you agree with the following statement: “All Lib Dem MPs currently facing questions over their expenses should appear before meetings of their local constituency party and be either re-adopted or de-selected.”
Here’s what you said:
>> 63% – Yes, I agree
>> 25% – No, I don’t agree
>> 12% – Don’t know / Other
As much as anything, compulsory re-selection is seen by those who responded as a way of symbolically bringing closure to the issue – though most commenters reckoned such a response should be left to local parties, and few expected it to lead to significant deselections.
(The comments submitted by those who completed the survey are in the process of being uploaded to LDV’s private members-only discussion forum).