• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

How much of a general decline in parliamentary standards are we experiencing?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,190
(commenting on the 2019 intake being less likely to support Paterson according to the article)

Though I'd have expected the 2019 intake, who I perceive as obedient Borisbots and were elected on a promise to push the Boris Deal through, to be more likely to follow their dear lord and master than the perhaps more independent-minded older Tory MPs who served under more reasonable leaders.
It could just be that some of the new MPs are getting furious emails etc from their constituents about this and even a few ''I'll never vote for you lot again'' messages will concentrate the minds of said MPs, especially those with three figure majorities. Self-interest and dog eat dog has never been more prevalent in Tory circles in modern times. The Labour Party is just beginning to get its act together on this subject (not before time, understatement) and might even start polling higher for a while, until the overwhelmingly Tory press get back to their default position. The BBC, now cringing at the top tier before their paymasters, will be so scared of the political bias accusation that they'll ensure the editorial teams downplay anything which suggests that some at both the top and lower levels of the Conservative Party do not emit the odour of roses every hour of the day and night.

A P.S. on the proposed 'independent anti-sleaze candidate' (now almost certainly shelved.) Dominic Grieve is the only person imo who might have sufficient gravitas and steely backbone to have been that person, and I'm sure if anything personally detrimental to him could have been found the rabid Brexiteers would long ago have published it.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,131
Location
Taunton or Kent
Here's a helpful list of the key investigations Johnson and/or the Government are facing right now:


The government's respect for rules for MPs has been called into question, following its handling of the case of former minister Owen Paterson.
No 10 initially backed overhauling the rules - and blocking his suspension - before performing a U-turn. Mr Paterson - who denies wrongdoing - has resigned as an MP.
The Conservatives and Boris Johnson are facing a number of investigations.

Downing Street flat​

Boris Johnson has faced questions over how the refurbishment of his Downing Street flat was paid for.
Conservative Party accounts revealed that over £50,000 of the costs were met by Tory donor Lord Brownlow, after the PM reached the limit of the annual £30,000 budget for upkeep.
Lord Brownlow's contribution was described as a "bridging loan" by the party, which paid him back in full.
But investigations continue.

The Electoral Commission: Ongoing
The watchdog is examining whether the Conservative Party breached laws on political finance.
It follows claims the costs of the flat refurbishment could have been initially covered by undeclared donations.
Under the rules, parties have to report donations to the commission if they are above a certain amount. The party said it believes all reportable donations were correctly declared.
The commission has powers to require parties, and any relevant individuals, to hand over documents and attend interviews.
It can issue fines of up to £20,000 or even refer the matter to the police.
Lord Geidt: Concluded
Mr Johnson asked his newly-appointed adviser on ministerial standards, Lord Geidt, to look into the "facts surrounding" the flat revamp.
He was supported by Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, who had also been asked to look into the matter.
Lord Geidt concluded the PM had not broken the ministerial code, but had acted "unwisely" by not being more "rigorous" in finding out who funded the refurbishment work.
Lord Geidt said a Tory donor had paid an invoice for some of the costs.

Jennifer Arcuri​

Mr Johnson has faced questions about his relationship with American businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri while he was London Mayor between 2008 and 2016.
Ms Arcuri received public grants for her technology business and event sponsorship, and had access to three foreign trade missions led by Mr Johnson.
She has since claimed to have had an intimate relationship with Mr Johnson, raising questions about conflicts of interest. Mr Johnson has always denied wrongdoing.

London Assembly investigation: Ongoing
In September the assembly heard evidence from Ms Arcuri, who said members of Boris Johnson's staff knew he had a "crush" on her when he was mayor.
Labour assembly member Len Duvall said the committee would look at Mr Johnson's conduct, including whether he adhered to the "principles of public life".
Any finding that Mr Johnson acted improperly could be politically damaging and embarrassing. But as he is no longer mayor, the assembly will not be able to impose any sanctions or question him further.
Separately, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said last year it would not carry out a criminal investigation into Boris Johnson's dealings with Ms Arcuri.

Greensill Capital​

A row about lobbying began after it emerged former Conservative prime minister David Cameron contacted ministers and officials via text messages, on behalf of collapsed finance firm Greensill Capital.
The company's founder worked as an unpaid adviser to Mr Cameron during his time in Downing Street.
Mr Cameron has insisted he did not break any rules, but acknowledged it would be better for ex-PMs to communicate more formally with government figures, through letters rather than texts.
The Boardman Review: Under consideration
Boris Johnson announced a review into government decisions involving Greensill, led by lawyer Nigel Boardman.
It examined the relationship between the firm and current and former ministers.

The first part of the review, published in July, said Mr Greensill's Downing Street role gave him a "marketing platform" for his business.
It also said Mr Cameron "understated" the nature of his relationship with Greensill Capital. However it concluded he "did not breach the current lobbying rules and his actions were not unlawful".
The second part, published in September, outlined 19 recommendations, including legally binding restrictions on the work former ministers and senior civil servants can take. It said those engaged in lobbying should formally register.
The government is yet to respond to the review, which is not legally binding.
Other Parliamentary inquiries
Three Commons select committees launched inquiries into Greensill:
  • The Treasury Committee said the Treasury should have encouraged Mr Cameron into more formal lines of communication
  • An interim report from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee found no apparent conflicts of interest in Mr Greensill's relationship with the government. It will now review Mr Boardman's reports
  • The Public Accounts Committee has examined evidence about Greensill Capital's involvement in government Covid loan schemes and is expected to publish a report in November
  • The independent advisory Committee on Standards in Public Life said "the current system of transparency around lobbying is not fit for purpose"
  • The National Audit Office found "no evidence" that ministers or senior civil servants considered potential conflicts of interest with Greensill Capital before awarding public sector contracts
David Cameron insisted his lobbying for Greensill was in the public interest, but also revealed he was paid "far more" by the finance firm than he was as PM, during appearances before the Treasury committee and the Public Accounts committee.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,534
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Noting the wording of the title of this thread, there was the matter some twelve years ago when John McDonnell, a backbench Labour Party MP, was suspended for five days from the House of Commons for taking hold of the Speaker's Mace in a debate. Would that matter fall under the sentiments of the thread title or would that matter fall under a different type of heading?
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,708
Location
Elginshire
Noting the wording of the title of this thread, there was the matter some twelve years ago when John McDonnell, a backbench Labour Party MP, was suspended for five days from the House of Commons for taking hold of the Speaker's Mace in a debate. Would that matter fall under the sentiments of the thread title or would that matter fall under a different type of heading?
If that MP broke any rules they should face the same sanctions as any other, regardless of which party they belong to.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Noting the wording of the title of this thread, there was the matter some twelve years ago when John McDonnell, a backbench Labour Party MP, was suspended for five days from the House of Commons for taking hold of the Speaker's Mace in a debate. Would that matter fall under the sentiments of the thread title or would that matter fall under a different type of heading?

If that MP broke any rules they should face the same sanctions as any other, regardless of which party they belong to.
Quite right. McDonnell was suspended, rather like Paterson was due to be. I don't see what the issue is. Except, as far as I know, no-one tried to change the rules to get him off the hook and he didn't ask for demand that his sentence be reconsidered.

There has been a long history of misuse of the mace (Mace grabbing: all the other times it’s been removed from Parliament (inews.co.uk)) with varying degrees of punishment. Hesseltine only had to apologise, Cromwell's punishment seems only to have been posthumous, and every male MP who is tempted needs to be reminded of (Ron) Brown's.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,316
Noting the wording of the title of this thread, there was the matter some twelve years ago when John McDonnell, a backbench Labour Party MP, was suspended for five days from the House of Commons for taking hold of the Speaker's Mace in a debate. Would that matter fall under the sentiments of the thread title or would that matter fall under a different type of heading?

I think that is trivial compared to the case of Paterson, and the more general tolerance of corruption that is symptomatic of the Johnson government.

While I will declare a strongly negative view of the Conservatives and only mildly negative view of Labour, I would say the same if Paterson had merely grabbed the speaker's mace. I'd think "so what"? See: David Mellor, and many of those other Tories under the Major government who got involved in extra-marital affairs, who I never had a real issue with.

In particular, have problems with the "in crowd" of the day, the MPs (often ministers) who go along with the leadership, getting special treatment.
 
Last edited:

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,534
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I think that is trivial compared to the case of Paterson, and the more general tolerance of corruption that is symptomatic of the Johnson government.

While I will declare a strongly negative view of the Conservatives and only mildly negative view of Labour, I would say the same if Paterson had merely grabbed the speaker's mace. I'd think "so what"?
If corruption is going to be the subject of this thread, it should have been stated in the title of the thread. All the thread title addresses is that of a decline in Parliamentary standards, which to my way of thinking, covered by the handling of the Speaker's Mace.

If someone wants to discuss tolerance of corruption, then let them set up a seperate thread where that matter can be discussed.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,131
Location
Taunton or Kent
Former Tory PM Sir John Major now has spoken out in criticism of the whole situation, a reminder of how much the Tory party has changed since then:


Former Conservative Prime Minister Sir John Major has criticised the government's handling of Owen Paterson's case as shameful and wrong.
In a BBC interview, he said the actions of Boris Johnson's government had trashed Parliament's reputation at home and abroad, and were "un-Conservative".
This week, the government tried to block the suspension of Mr Paterson, who had broken lobbying rules - but then reversed its decision.
The government has apologised.
On Wednesday, Tory MPs blocked the Commons Standards Committee's recommendation that Mr Paterson should be suspended for 30 days by calling for an overhaul of the MPs' standards watchdog instead.
They initially had the backing of No 10, but Downing Street reversed its decision after a furious backlash by opposition MPs and some Conservatives.
Mr Paterson then resigned as MP for North Shropshire, saying he wanted a life "outside the cruel world of politics".

Sir John suggested the Johnson administration was "politically corrupt" over its treatment of the House of Commons and said its attempt to overhaul the standards system was "rather a bad mistake" but "isn't a mistake on its own".
"There's a general whiff of 'we are the masters now' about their behaviour," he said.
"It has to stop, it has to stop soon."
Sir John told BBC's Radio 4's Today programme: "I have been a Conservative all my life. And if I am concerned at how the government is behaving, I suspect lots of other people are as well.
"It seems to me, as a lifelong Conservative, that much of what they are doing is un-Conservative in its behaviour."
"This government has done a number of things that have concerned me deeply: they have broken the law, the prorogation of Parliament. They have broken treaties, I have in mind the Northern Ireland Protocol. They have broken their word on many occasions."
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,396
Location
Fenny Stratford
Noting the wording of the title of this thread, there was the matter some twelve years ago when John McDonnell, a backbench Labour Party MP, was suspended for five days from the House of Commons for taking hold of the Speaker's Mace in a debate. Would that matter fall under the sentiments of the thread title or would that matter fall under a different type of heading?
Give it a rest man. It is pointless, dull and boring but I suppose obfuscation is one of your specialties. Referring to actions in the past offers nothing, has no bearing on the current situation and is mere whataboutary. That said, McDonnell was rightly banned from Parliament for being a twonk. The important difference is Labour didn't try to chuck out the entire system to protect one of their own simply because they didn't like that he had been caught. Your boys did. You don't seem concerned by that.

From your posts on this subject I can only assume that you feel parliamentary corruption is fine, especially when practiced by Conservative MP's or a Tory Prime Minister
 
Last edited:

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,534
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Give it a rest man. It is pointless, dull and boring but I suppose obfuscation is one of your specialties. Referring to actions in the past offers nothing, has no bearing on the current situation and is mere whataboutary. That said, McDonnell was rightly banned from Parliament for being a twonk. The important difference is Labour didn't try to chuck out the entire system to protect one of their own simply because they didn't like that he had been caught. Your boys did. You don't seem concerned by that.

From your posts on this subject I can only assume that you feel parliamentary corruption is fine, especially when practiced by Conservative MP's or a Tory Prime Minister
See my posting # 128 that specifically mentions corruption and then set up a new thread as I suggested in that posting where that matter can be discussed to your heart's delight.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,190
Former Tory PM Sir John Major now has spoken out in criticism of the whole situation, a reminder of how much the Tory party has changed since then:

It was a very powerful and passionate oration, and all credit to Major for refusing to allow Nick Robinson, the interviewer, to constantly interject with attempts to deflect him. It should serve as a wake-up call to any person like Major, a Conservative all his life, that 'their' party is in danger of being taken over by extremists, if it hasn't already been. Never mind the toothless J. Corbyn and Labour, it's the right wing in this country that presents the very real and present danger to our liberties.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,281
Location
SE London
It was a very powerful and passionate oration, and all credit to Major for refusing to allow Nick Robinson, the interviewer, to constantly interject with attempts to deflect him. It should serve as a wake-up call to any person like Major, a Conservative all his life, that 'their' party is in danger of being taken over by extremists, if it hasn't already been. Never mind the toothless J. Corbyn and Labour, it's the right wing in this country that presents the very real and present danger to our liberties.

Uh? Seems a bit of a stretch to go from, MP caught apparently lobbying on behalf of companies that are paying him and, after a rather incompetent attempt by the Government to save him, ends up resigning, to 'real and present danger to our liberties'. Care to clarify how the one causes the other?
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,316
It was a very powerful and passionate oration, and all credit to Major for refusing to allow Nick Robinson, the interviewer, to constantly interject with attempts to deflect him. It should serve as a wake-up call to any person like Major, a Conservative all his life, that 'their' party is in danger of being taken over by extremists, if it hasn't already been. Never mind the toothless J. Corbyn and Labour, it's the right wing in this country that presents the very real and present danger to our liberties.

Absolutely.

Uh? Seems a bit of a stretch to go from, MP caught apparently lobbying on behalf of companies that are paying him and, after a rather incompetent attempt by the Government to save him, ends up resigning, to 'real and present danger to our liberties'. Care to clarify how the one causes the other?

Patersongate is symptomatic of the general attitude of this government. This is going OT so probably belongs in another thread, I agree, but what about the Policing Bill or Elections Bill which appear to place limits on protest or on non-party-affiliated groups campaigning in an election?

It is very interesting when a former Conservative prime minister savagely attacks the current lot. I have never been a Conservative but the old guard such as Major are worthy of respect as human beings, and come across as reasoned moderates. The current lot, by contrast, come across as unprincipled yobs willing to do or say anything to win, or retain, votes in the demographic that they have targeted - and apparently through the above Bills appear to want to silence dissent, so that when it goes t*ts-up for them soon due to a combination of Covid, Brexit and the fuel crisis, they'll be protected from losing too much support.
 
Last edited:

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,708
Location
Elginshire
See my posting # 128 that specifically mentions corruption and then set up a new thread as I suggested in that posting where that matter can be discussed to your heart's delight.
Corruption in parliament leads to a decline in parliamentary standards, does it not? I don't see why it needs to be specifically mentioned in the thread title.

I honestly can't understand why you're getting so defensive about all this. If I was a Tory voter (and it makes me slightly queasy thinking about it) I'd be livid that the party I voted for is acting in such a manner. It stinks. All you can do is say "B.. b.. but Labour did it too", but that's not the point. It does not matter one jot which party, be it Con, Lab, Lib, SNP or DUP, is indulging in dodgy activities; each and every MP needs to be held to account in the same way. We don't need to be singing from the same "Socialist hymn sheet" to share that view.

Having said that, it's the Tories that are currently in government, and their actions have consequences for us all, regardless of how we voted.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,190
Uh? Seems a bit of a stretch to go from, MP caught apparently lobbying on behalf of companies that are paying him and, after a rather incompetent attempt by the Government to save him, ends up resigning, to 'real and present danger to our liberties'. Care to clarify how the one causes the other?
I'll leave you to listen to the John Major interview. I'll also mention the illegal proroguing of Parliament, attempts being made to disallow any High Court (and higher ones) examination of Executive actions in future, the non-release of the report into certain Russians transferring huge amounts of wealth and influence to the Tories and their supporters, the refusal to support a very senior civil servant whose life and career were made intolerable by the Home Secretary, etc etc. Oh, and a government that continues to attack the national broadcaster, which worldwide has always been the mark of a government which will not cede power easily.
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
I honestly can't understand why you're getting so defensive about all this. If I was a Tory voter (and it makes me slightly queasy thinking about it) I'd be livid that the party I voted for is acting in such a manner. It stinks. All you can do is say "B.. b.. but Labour did it too", but that's not the point. It does not matter one jot which party, be it Con, Lab, Lib, SNP or DUP, is indulging in dodgy activities; each and every MP needs to be held to account in the same way. We don't need to be singing from the same "Socialist hymn sheet" to share that view.

Having said that, it's the Tories that are currently in government, and their actions have consequences for us all, regardless of how we voted.

See I feel this way. While I hold some fairly left wings views on certain things I do tend to swing to the centre right overall and normally want to vote that way. But for the last few elections I've felt absolutely unable to even consider voting for the only practical right wing party just because of how reprehensible they've become. So I've reverted to voting for the individual candidates (if a non Tory I like as an individual is running) and if there isn't one then I spoil my ballot.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,131
Location
Taunton or Kent
See I feel this way. While I hold some fairly left wings views on certain things I do tend to swing to the centre right overall and normally want to vote that way. But for the last few elections I've felt absolutely unable to even consider voting for the only practical right wing party just because of how reprehensible they've become. So I've reverted to voting for the individual candidates (if a non Tory I like as an individual is running) and if there isn't one then I spoil my ballot.
It's been talked about widely in different places, including on here, but what we need is an overhaul of democratic systems in this country to enable both the country and our political institutions to improve. The primary improvement needs to be a PR voting system: allow voters to vote for who they like the most knowing they'll get at least some representation, not be forced to vote for a "least worst" option. Also PR would likely lead to parties needing to both work together to obtain power and be pragmatic and broad reaching in terms of garnering support, whereas at the moment divisive rhetoric is encouraged by the system to gain full control.

Majority Governments should only be allowed if there is a majority of voter support, and coalition arrangements might sound unstable and ineffective, but one only needs to look at countries like Germany, where coalitions have existed throughout the post-war era, and arguably they've been better run than we have, something even Farage admitted after the 2015 GE here. There's a lot more accountability this way as well, and other reforms that will improve political standards will be far more likely to succeed when PR is in place, such as democratic Lord's reform and reduced influence of dark money in politics.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,475
Location
No longer here
I'd be careful about suggesting Germany as a good exponent of AV; it has a very complex electoral system and you won't get much truck in the UK when people find out the neo-Nazis have 94 seats.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,396
Location
Fenny Stratford
See my posting # 128 that specifically mentions corruption and then set up a new thread as I suggested in that posting where that matter can be discussed to your heart's delight.
I am not sure pedantry is helpful. I also note you seem unwilling to comment on the shoddy behaviour of your Tory leaders. Will they strike you off if you do?
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,131
Location
Taunton or Kent
I'd be careful about suggesting Germany as a good exponent of AV; it has a very complex electoral system and you won't get much truck in the UK when people find out the neo-Nazis have 94 seats.
Germany uses a mixed-member proportional representation system, it doesn't use AV, or if its system can be described as AV, it's certainly not the kind that was being advocated in the 2011 referendum here, which was an alternative form of FPTP in effect.

As for the neo-Nazis issue, firstly the latest election gave them 82 seats, down from the 94 in the previous one. Second, yes it's always concerning when those groups can get representation in such a way, but I think a good counter-argument at the moment is the mainstream Conservative party just moved further to the extreme right to absorb UKIP/BXP votes, knowing their core moderate base would either stay put on a "least worst" basis, or go somewhere else (like the Lib Dems or not vote at all) and not greatly impact the overall result. A similar effect has happened in the US with the Republican party now essentially being the Trump party.
 

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
3,942
The biggest decline in actual parliamentary standards, something the current tories are probably the worst although Labour were pretty much as bad, is making policy and other significant announcements to the press before the house. The current speaker seems happy to merely point it out rather than do anything about it
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,611
Location
Up the creek
The biggest decline in actual parliamentary standards, something the current tories are probably the worst although Labour were pretty much as bad, is making policy and other significant announcements to the press before the house. The current speaker seems happy to merely point it out rather than do anything about it
Can the speaker actually do anything about it, other than complain, as it does not occur in the House? He could possibly force a vote criticising the government or one of its favourites, but we have seen in the last few days what happens next.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,131
Location
Taunton or Kent
Now we can add another reported sleaze row, with the Sunday Times reporting what looks like "Cash for Honours 2":

1636243224094.png
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
1,795
I also note you seem unwilling to comment on the shoddy behaviour of your Tory leaders. Will they strike you off if you do?

The Tory faithful will be running scared of these claims and will absolutely want to minimise, redirect and otherwise reduce the coverage of these stories.

Last time the party was revealed to be playing these sorts of games, it resulted in them being out of power for 13 years, and only took one election cycle to get to that point, it's not like it was the start of a slow decline. Already the Mail has turned on the government and there are other stories which have come out of the woodwork as soon as the public mood has shifted slightly. We've got the new claims about cash-for-honours, which the reporting states even Tory MP's knew about and know is wrong, but nobody talks about. The overall message about Boris and his flat has gone from "he spent how much on wallpaper?" to how he's been cheating tax payers, with the governments attacks on the chair of the standards commission not going un-noticed (really, "she needs to consider he position, because we've just created a committee that will ignore her" - which idiot came up with that as a briefing strategy).

As the other thread asks, when will things go wrong for the tories, well, we may well have just seen that this week. And when you put it in that context, it's obvious why the faithful are going down the "yeah, he got bribed £100k a year to break the rules, but this Labour MP picked up the mace - it's the same thing really isn't it" route.

Expect to see some epic dead cat moves in the coming weeks, it's about the only thing this government are actually good at.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,190
The Tory faithful will be running scared of these claims and will absolutely want to minimise, redirect and otherwise reduce the coverage of these stories.

Last time the party was revealed to be playing these sorts of games, it resulted in them being out of power for 13 years, and only took one election cycle to get to that point, it's not like it was the start of a slow decline. Already the Mail has turned on the government and there are other stories which have come out of the woodwork as soon as the public mood has shifted slightly. We've got the new claims about cash-for-honours, which the reporting states even Tory MP's knew about and know is wrong, but nobody talks about. The overall message about Boris and his flat has gone from "he spent how much on wallpaper?" to how he's been cheating tax payers, with the governments attacks on the chair of the standards commission not going un-noticed (really, "she needs to consider he position, because we've just created a committee that will ignore her" - which idiot came up with that as a briefing strategy).

As the other thread asks, when will things go wrong for the tories, well, we may well have just seen that this week. And when you put it in that context, it's obvious why the faithful are going down the "yeah, he got bribed £100k a year to break the rules, but this Labour MP picked up the mace - it's the same thing really isn't it" route.

Expect to see some epic dead cat moves in the coming weeks, it's about the only thing this government are actually good at.
Mace waving in the Commons started with one Michael Heseltine in 1976. Presumably a veteran member from NW England either has amnesia on the subject or doesn't consider Heseltine to ever have been ''one of us.'' :D
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
As the other thread asks, when will things go wrong for the tories, well, we may well have just seen that this week. And when you put it in that context, it's obvious why the faithful are going down the "yeah, he got bribed £100k a year to break the rules, but this Labour MP picked up the mace - it's the same thing really isn't it" route.
To me it is not just the £100k consultancy but his proclamation that he "wouldn't hesitate to do it again". Something like 'on reflection I can see how it might appear so I could consider ....' might have been more appropriate. He's an experienced politician, he must know how it comes across. For some, 'sorry' does indeed seem to be the hardest word. And, as far as giving up "the cruel world of politics", if he thinks that a thirty day suspension amounts to cruelty. he needs to start living in the same world that most of us inhabit.
 

Strathclyder

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
3,235
Location
Clydebank
To me it is not just the £100k consultancy but his proclamation that he "wouldn't hesitate to do it again". Something like 'on reflection I can see how it might appear so I could consider ....' might have been more appropriate. He's an experienced politician, he must know how it comes across. For some, 'sorry' does indeed seem to be the hardest word. And, as far as giving up "the cruel world of politics", if he thinks that a thirty day suspension amounts to cruelty. he needs to start living in the same world that most of us inhabit.
There is more likelihood of the 7th circle freezing over than this happening, let's be honest. I personally wouldn't bet on it.

Former Tory PM Sir John Major now has spoken out in criticism of the whole situation, a reminder of how much the Tory party has changed since then:

Never thought I'd see myself broadly agreeing with a former Tory PM, but I guess that's how low the bar has dropped. While I'd never vote for or align myself with the Conservatives (the mere thought makes me a tad queasy), I, like @nickw1, can at least respect the old guard as human beings and view them as reasonable moderates - especially in comparison to the current mob - while still strongly disagreeing with their politics/policies.

Corruption in parliament leads to a decline in parliamentary standards, does it not? I don't see why it needs to be specifically mentioned in the thread title.

I honestly can't understand why you're getting so defensive about all this. If I was a Tory voter (and it makes me slightly queasy thinking about it) I'd be livid that the party I voted for is acting in such a manner. It stinks. All you can do is say "B.. b.. but Labour did it too", but that's not the point. It does not matter one jot which party, be it Con, Lab, Lib, SNP or DUP, is indulging in dodgy activities; each and every MP needs to be held to account in the same way. We don't need to be singing from the same "Socialist hymn sheet" to share that view.

Having said that, it's the Tories that are currently in government, and their actions have consequences for us all, regardless of how we voted.
Precisely. This political whataboutery is one of the oldest tools in the book, and it's a damn tiring one to have to deal with time and again.

It don't matter to me what polictial party it is: all MPs should be held to the same standards. Period. None of this 'But Labour did this', or 'the SNP did that' BS when the party in power is hauled up for such wrongdoing. Otherwise, there is a rapid erosion of both parlimentary standards and the general public's ability to trust and have confidence in government as a whole. Quite frankly, I'd be seething if the party I voted in acted in such a blatantly corrupt manner, as any rational person should rightly be.
 
Last edited:

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,190
83 year old Martin Bell told Nigel Farage on GB News in an interview that he would consider contesting the Leicester East seat if Keith Vaz attempted to make a comeback there. The vile Vaz escaped a six month Parliamentary suspension by standing down at the 2019 General Election, which in turn meant no recall petition could be presented.I found the item on Youtube tonight but have no idea how to link.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,131
Location
Taunton or Kent
83 year old Martin Bell told Nigel Farage on GB News in an interview that he would consider contesting the Leicester East seat if Keith Vaz attempted to make a comeback there. The vile Vaz escaped a six month Parliamentary suspension by standing down at the 2019 General Election, which in turn meant no recall petition could be presented. I found the item on Youtube tonight but have no idea how to link.
I would hope the Labour leadership stage an intervention and prevent him standing if Vaz was to rerun. My understanding is candidates are decided by local parties, but they are then vetted and the main party can intervene if the candidate has a controversial past. In this case they wouldn't have to bother digging anywhere to find stuff on Vaz. The fact Starmer has been calling today for Claudia Webbe to resign, and supporting a recall petition if she doesn't, suggests he's taking standards among his party's MPs seriously, so one would hope the same would happen in selecting a new candidate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top