It seems the honourable member for Mid Bedfordshire is finally coming to terms with her own mendacity. Desperation to escape the attentions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has seen Nadine Dorries lay claim to the concept of “fiction-based political blogging” in respect of her taxpayer-funded website:

“My blog is 70% fiction and 30% fact … I rely heavily on poetic licence and frequently replace one place name/event/fact with another.”

The report from the Commons watchdog cleared her of abusing parliamentary allowances for second homes. However the findings on the levels of sincerity displayed by Dorries during the investigation are daminng:

Comments made by Ms Dorries on her blog suggested that she spent the majority of her weekends in the constituency, whilst she had told the Commissioner that nearly all weekends were spent in her main home … The Commissioner accepts Ms Dorries’ explanation of the comments she made on her blog, but notes that they “provided a misleading impression of her arrangements” … There are discrepancies between some of the information that appeared on Ms Dorries’ blog and the information she supplied to the Commissioner during the investigation.

Scrapbook fondly recalls the following remark on Dorries from one Conservative partisan:

“She’s a liability, but she’s our liability!”

  1. Pingback: Alec Speight
  2. Pingback: Grey Murphy
  3. Pingback: Teresa
  4. Pingback: Steve
  5. Pingback: Tim Ireland
  6. Pingback: craftandart
  7. Pingback: Ben Cave
  8. I think your being very unfair. Nadine has made clear that this was a selfless act to defend her family and staff. After all, “the police had told her the best thing to do was try to disguise her movements”. And she was being “as honest as any MP can be with my constituents”.

    So what else was a responsible MP to do except make up a load of lies that also happened to contradict her expenses position? It was the only rational course of action.

  9. Pingback: Lerryn

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


Comments are limited to 1000 characters.