The Conservative Party - Part Two.

[Carbuncle 0]

4 minutes ago, sibon said:

Let's move the debate on from obviously corrupt Tory mps and their enablers in Government.

 

Is Nadine Dorries fit for office? 

 

Why pick on Nadine Dorries? Unless, ... is it possible that you think all the other Tory MPs are obviously corrupt and she is the only option in terms of moving on.

[Longcol 604]

9 hours ago, Tony said:

OK, I'll take that on board, thanks for clarifying. How do you feel about the present system in terms of (for the sake of argument let's call it) internal courts and marking their own homework? 

 

My essential point is that MPs, Parliamentarians in general, should be subject to systems that we would recognise as natural justice in the wider country. They are after all, not a breed apart, merely representatives as our equals and subject to the same laws outside Parliament. Therefore it follows that they should be subject to the same civil privilege where the functions of investigator, prosecutor, jury and judge are separate and have transparent routes to appeal.  At the end of the day, Parliament is the senior law body and that in itself is a good enough reason that they shouldn't be marking their own homework.

Which is why, as I previously pointed out, that the rules regarding standards are very similar to disciplinary policies / procedures in organisations I've worked for. MP's are treated very similarly to employees.

 

They are subject to laws outside Parliament. Breaking standards, like breaking company rules, isn't a criminal offence, it's a disciplinary matter.

 

The differences from disciplinary procedures appear to be;

1) Sanctions against MP's are far less than against employees eg MP's can't be dismissed for gross misconduct (rightly as that is the job of the electorate).

2) Following on from that, from experience,  appeals in disciplinary proceedings that end up going to an independent external body - eg an industrial tribunal - are cases appealing against wrongful dismissal. MP's can't get sacked.

 

There is a general principal that investigations etc should be consumerate to the level of sanction available - eg you don't hold a full tribunal for something that would result in a verbal warning .

 

As previously pointed out in the Paterson case where the sanction was more than a verbal warning there was a clear separation between investigator / prosecutor  and judge / jury.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Longcol

[Mister M 1,625]

21 minutes ago, sibon said:

Let's move the debate on from obviously corrupt Tory mps and their enablers in Government.

 

Is Nadine Dorries fit for office? 

 

 

 

 

Nadine Dorries is a ghastly woman. She was last seen on Telly eating an ostritch anus, and now she's Minister for Culture.

wtf!

There's probably more culture in a pot of yoghurt

Edited November 5, 2021 by Mister M

[Guest sibon]

9 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Nadine Dorries is a ghastly woman. She was last seen on Telly eating an ostritch anus, and now she's Minister for Culture.

wtf!

There's probably more culture in a pot of yoghurt

Well done, Culture Secretary. Good to see that you fit in well with the rest of our atrocious front bench.

 

If anyone is interested, Nadine has been showing all of her skills today. Start here and follow your nose:

 

 

[Tony 10]

8 hours ago, Longcol said:

Which is why, as I previously pointed out, that the rules regarding standards are very similar to disciplinary policies / procedures in organisations I've worked for. MP's are treated very similarly to employees.

 

They are subject to laws outside Parliament. Breaking standards, like breaking company rules, isn't a criminal offence, it's a disciplinary matter.

 

The differences from disciplinary procedures appear to be;

1) Sanctions against MP's are far less than against employees eg MP's can't be dismissed for gross misconduct (rightly as that is the job of the electorate).

2) Following on from that, from experience,  appeals in disciplinary proceedings that end up going to an independent external body - eg an industrial tribunal - are cases appealing against wrongful dismissal. MP's can't get sacked.

 

There is a general principal that investigations etc should be consumerate to the level of sanction available - eg you don't hold a full tribunal for something that would result in a verbal warning .

 

As previously pointed out in the Paterson case where the sanction was more than a verbal warning there was a clear separation between investigator / prosecutor  and judge / jury.

I'm not sure what your point is here Longcol. Put current events to one side when considering your response.

 

You seem to be saying that it's ok for MPs to have a disciplinary system that is different to everyone else.  I'm saying that's a bad thing and that it should be the same.

[Mister M 1,625]

Former Conservative Prime Minister Sir John Major has criticised the government's handling of Owen Paterson's case as shameful and wrong.

 

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.

 

Ex-PM John Major: Government handling of Paterson case shameful - BBC News

Edited November 6, 2021 by Mister M

[crookesey 635]

Bojo has a huge majority, it doesn’t matter that practically everyone, irrespective of political belief, detests him, he doesn’t care as he’s well used to being detested. The Tory Party is the only organisation that has the power to unseat him, unless he actually breaks the law, my guess is that wheels are slowly turning, we just haven’t heard them yet.

[Anna B 1,414]

20 minutes ago, crookesey said:

Bojo has a huge majority, it doesn’t matter that practically everyone, irrespective of political belief, detests him, he doesn’t care as he’s well used to being detested. The Tory Party is the only organisation that has the power to unseat him, unless he actually breaks the law, my guess is that wheels are slowly turning, we just haven’t heard them yet.

Meanwhile Boris is still popular with a large portion of the country. Beggers belief doesn't it?

He has excellent PR and media support. While ever they think he's re-electable they'll keep him. 

 

[Mister M 1,625]

I'm just listening to LBC at the moment, and rather predictably the conversation has turned to MP's poor salaries, as if that's mitigation for Patterson's behaviour.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

No doubt that MPs have friends who they were at university with, and are now working in the City of London earning a fortune. That must be galling for some of them. l dare say that most people on here know of school mates, friends at university, or people in their own work places who climb the greasy pole not because of merit, or what they know, but simply due to favouritism or 'your face fits'.It stinks, but it's life. If MPs want shed loads of money then the option of working in the City of London is open to them. 

I think many MPs are very hard working and are public spirited, the tributes to Jo Cox and David Amess are testament to that. Social Workers, a comparison made by some MPs themselves when describing their constituency work, aren't paid what MPs are - but many do it because they're driven by vocation, belief and public service.

However who's to say that if MPs were paid, say £150,000, they still would take outside consultancies, or 'sit on boards' of 'whichever organisation to 'gain more experience of real life'. Perhaps it's greed rather than need that's driving some MPs to take more money.... 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Mister M

[crookesey 635]

44 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Meanwhile Boris is still popular with a large portion of the country. Beggers belief doesn't it?

He has excellent PR and media support. While ever they think he's re-electable they'll keep him. 

 

The truth is that there will be aTory government for many years to come, Corbyn saw to that. The question is, what type of Tory government does the membership prefer, the current type or a more caring and professional type, I have an inkling for the latter.

Edited November 6, 2021 by crookesey

[Mister M 1,625]

11 minutes ago, crookesey said:

The truth is that there will be aTory government for many years to come, Corbyn saw to that. The question is, what type of Tory government does the membership prefer, the current type or a more caring and professional type, I have an inkling for the latter.

But Boris Johnson is supposed to be about 'compassionate Conservatism'.

[crookesey 635]

8 minutes ago, Mister M said:

But Boris Johnson is supposed to be about 'compassionate Conservatism'.

If my aunty had a penis she’d be my uncle, but she hasn’t, so she isn’t. ‘Compassionate’ my backside.

Edited November 6, 2021 by crookesey