They could at least have a reasonable and robust procedure. It would benefit everyone in the long term.
In the meantime - string him up!

Red and Blue Army!

Money and power corrupts is older than the Bible. In the Republic Plato wrote that politics naturally attracts individuals who are motivated by personal gain and power. He promoted the idea that philosophers were the best leaders as they were trained in ethics....obviously he himself was one so he had bias.

Still, the point is a strong one. The problem of lobbying and money has always existed and despite these overly pious times no one seems to wish to tackle it.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Nov 2021 8.48am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I look forward to your outrage next time a Labour politician gets caught with his nose in the trough.

Didn't hear you bleating too much when one was recently found guilty of threatening to throw acid in someone's face.

It's a real pig when other posters judge everything you say on preconceptions, isn't it?

Ultimately the reigns of power are handed from one party to another so none of this advantages joe public. Excusing certain misdeeds because of a perception that some people would do the same for another party if they were in power results in the exact same outcome for all anyway and is a distraction from the present.

If your argument is that you don't care about integrity or decency because you can point towards examples of opponents you perceive don't, then realise that ultimately you let yourself become a cobbled together caricature of the very worst that you can extract from or imagine of those your dislike.

Edited by BlueJay (04 Nov 2021 10.23am)

So pointing out the hypocrisy in others is wrong and a distraction? Seems like a self criticism.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

It's funny you should take that approach, Hrolf, as you could as easily look at it from the other angle. Would there be a clamour to change the rules from a Tory majority parliament if the person in the stocks was a senior Labour MP?

I have not read this whole thread so we may be in agreement on this notwithstanding our differing political colour. But this case seems as clear cut as it is possible to be in politics. There were rules that everyone knew about. They were not just broken by this guy but the breach was flagrant and he profited considerably. Face the music.

The rules may well be bad and require reform. However, there are rather a lot of bad laws about. That is why the law is considered to be always there - we are just in a permanent struggle to find it. Thus, these rules were probably a knee-jerk to cash-for-questions or something and, as with most rushed, politically expedient, knee-jerk laws they are generally made on the hoof and are fundamentally flawed.

Therefore, natural justice does, indeed, dictate a requirement to be properly heard and to have a right of appeal. If these rules are bad they need to be made good. To find themselves.

However, natural justice also provides that rules cannot be applied retrospectively. That principle is sacrosanct. Good government does not allow the executive to alter the rules to help their friends.

The rules need to be amended to bring them into line with natural justice and that requires time and care. When the new law is made, everyone will know what they are, and people will be judged in accordance with those new rules if they commit the breach while they are in place. It's black and white to me. Unarguable.

The one perplexing thing about this is the "why"? Not why he did what he did as that is obvious £££. But why the Tories have risen to put the whole party's head on the block? They are having to come on broadcast media to defend the obviously indefensible and have dragged down the reputation of their government. They are also bringing in his wife's suicide and conflating the two issues which is something of a new low.

But there was no need. Their majority is huge and the opposition fractious and of little threat. Have him take his 30 days; that takes us up to the party season; by the New Year the story will be forgotten chip wrap. No-one will care. It would not have impacted at all on the one element they really care about - maintenance of power.

People might care now.

Very odd.