Categories
Options
Moggsy could be in trouble – politicalbetting.com
Moggsy could be in trouble – politicalbetting.com
Exclusive?Privileges committee to discipline privy councillors who called it 'kangaroo court' in report out tomorrow morning; Jacob Rees-Mogg could be in the firing line.More in today's Chopper's Politics Newsletter:https://t.co/yT597dTjrE pic.twitter.com/25C2x99Udp
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Hoping it's literal.
In 2021, only 0.7% of homeowners were between the age of 16 and 24. This rose to 11.2% for those in the 25-34 age bracket, and 15.4% for those between 35 and 44 years of age. Less than a fifth were 55-64 years old.
The overwhelming majority were those aged 65 and over, occupying over one-third of the homeowner market.
So the heading appears to be misleading; it doesn;'t appear to have anything to do with mortgages. Makes more sense to me as described - 35% of homeowners are 65 or over.
Here's the link see if you think I have misunderstood.
https://www.uswitch.com/mortgages/mortgage-statistics/
PS thanks williamglenn for the link
Plus what you envisage (not necessarily personally yourself) implies that HoC discipline should be on solely party grounds.
In 2019, mortgage free home owners backed the Conservatives 59-22 - home owners with mortgages backed Boris Johnson 43-33. Renters were Labour (mid 40s). The current Redfield & Wilton among all home owners (therefore with and without mortgages) had the Conservatives and Labour level at 35 each with the LDs on 16.
It's a group of interest, I believe, and polling to be followed.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/14/truss-right-looming-british-mortgage-catastrophe-proves-it/
The ‘sensibles’ believed higher taxes would stop interest rate hikes. They were calamitously wrong
Anyone, anywhere, for any reason ought to be able to call out a 'kangaroo court' whether its a kangaroo court or not.
If its not a kangaroo court then show your evidence and win the argument. Don't punish people for criticising you. Because that's precisely what kangaroo courts actually do.
If Truss was in power interest rates would already be at 6%.. with another 1-2% to go.
I imagine that Andy Carter (Warrington South, majority 2000) isn't going to be investing in new soft furnishings for his Westminster office either.
That leaves Bernard Jenkin and Alberto Costa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCcLMNcWZOc (3:00 on)
On a personal level I couldn't care less if Mogg is disciplined. He probably deserves it for something.
However on a matter of principle, free speech matters. Even if the person saying it is wrong to say it, they should be free to say it.
In Putin's Russia they have actual kangaroo courts and critics who say the truth are punished for doing so.
We must always have the right to criticise those in authority. And that means even batshit crazy conspiracy theorist lunatics must have that right too. Because otherwise when those in authority are abusing it, you've removed all the protections.
Now that all sounds dramatic, but I think there's a real risk. The application of law should be solemn, sober, and dignified. And those who come to court screaming, or who stand outside profaning the process as biased could damage that. We can't allow someone with a bully pulpit to undermine the rule of law.
That all said, the bit I'm not sure about is whether any of this applies in this case. It's not a court, but it's somewhat courtlike.
Criticising the court for its rulings or decisions outside the court absolutely should not be punished or called contempt.
Anyone should be free to say any court, judge, jurist or whatever has made a mistake. Even if they haven't. Because if they have, people need to be free to say so, or else those in authority can abuse powers to deliberately make mistakes and silence any critics.
And your claim about first hand accounts which were ignored, explain how you know that on any basis other than hearsay. Who told you, first hand, that these accounts were given to them?
EG when we had the case earlier this week about the woman who was imprisoned after having an abortion we had some quite detailed discussions and the Judge was called pompous and other things by some of the people here. Should that be 'contempt of court'? I don't think so, its free speech.
Absolutely anyone with a bully pulpit, or any other pulpit, should be free to say that courts or anyone else has made a mistake. Nobody in a position of authority should ever be above criticism.
It's analogous and closely related to libel or slander. And court officials shouldn't have to get into slanging matches with members of the public to defend their reputation. The judicial system must have its reputation preserved where it deserves to be preserved. The rule of law depends on that.
God help us
Otherwise those who are improper can't be called out and can get away with being improper, if they can just silence their critics.
If someone is wrong, or a conspiracy nutjob, then they should be dismissed as such. But nobody should ever be above reproach, because what if the reproach is genuine and correct?
Be careful what you wish for. Sometimes what you wish for gets *you*, instead
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/14/fox-news-dictator-banner-chyron-trump-joe-biden
And the place to make arguments about the rightness or wrongness of the report is the Commons chamber that he claims to love so much. They don't have to follow the recommendations of the committee.
And the worst that the Commons could do to Boris is force him to get an endorsement from his constituents. Again, the sort of democracy that JRM claims to champion. Trust the people and all that.
Instead, JRM has chosen to throw rocks at the first stage of the process before it's even finished.
Fine if he is now a newstalk shock jock with a plummy voice, but that's not who he is... is it?
Reputations can be earnt and lost. If the system is not corrupt, then it should be possible to keep earning a good reputation and conspiracy lunatics will be dismissed.
If you need to silence your critics in order to keep a good reputation, then you don't deserve one.
I'm reminded of this quote. Even if Mogg is the Devil he still needs the benefit of free speech.
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
Obviously football is much less consequential than rule of law (I expect pushback here) so I'm not saying the same rules should apply to sport as do in court.
I suspect Moggs comments will boomerang on him.
Putin's Russia and similar nations that are not free democracies.
I'd rather America than Russia thank you very much.
Yes I'd give free speech to Trump and every other lunatic, as much as I despise him, because if he doesn't have free speech then neither do his own critics if he becomes President and starts abusing his powers.
Members of the Commons had to fight for the right to regulate themselves, and that process involved calling out those members who were batting for the other side.
Free speech doesn't mean consequence-free speech.
If Rees-Mogg undermines the business and work of the Commons, by making unsubstantiated allegations about its work, that he must know will only fuel conspiratorial thinking and undermine British democracy - then absolutely he should expect there to be consequences for that deliberate and damaging act.
Democracy is not just something that exists by natural law. It is a precious and fragile thing, and people like Rees-Mogg are a threat to its survival. He has no respect for the history, for the process, for the principles of democracy. He's only interested for as long as he gets what he wants from it.
And yet, the thought of JRM being had up before the Privileges Committee for contempt is rather amusing. I hope they find some grammatical error in his criticism, that would be the icing on the cake.
I feel as if that same rule should be applied to some non-personal entities in certain limited cases. Courts for one.
Mogg is a prick. Even pricks have rights.
Hellish managed democracy happens when people in authority get to choose who has the right to speak etc which they then abuse to enforce their own version of "truth" such as the "special military operation", not when everyone does, no matter how wrongheaded they are.
But that's the William Roper/Thomas More quote I quoted earlier isn't it? Mogg may be the devil, but we need to protect even the devil using our laws.
JRM is (God help you) a freaking "Right Honourable" MP who knows the rules that he allegedly breached.
NOT a case of free speech - anymore than shouting "Fire!" in a crowed theater (or theatre if you must).
Rather, more scumbaggery by a serial scumbag who was defaming parliamentary institutions and process on behalf of his fellow serial scumbag.
Paul Waugh
@paulwaugh
·
2h
No party has won a general election in the last 50 years without winning mortgage holders.
Labour currently has a 15 point lead over the Conservatives among mortgage holders, a new poll has found.
Lab 44% Con 29%.
Because otherwise scumbags in positions of authority insist their own fictional version of reality is the "truth" and that anyone criticising them with the actual truth is defaming them and should be censored as a result.
As we see in Russia all the time, and as Trump tried to do when he was in power.
Two things can be true simultaneously. Yes, Mogg is a scumbag. And yes, even scumbags need free speech.
So disapprove of Mogg all you like. I do. I can't stand Mogg.
If there's talk of censoring him though, of punishing him, that's another matter.
Even if what he said was wrong, even if it was pigheaded, even if it was stupid, he should still have the right to say it.
Overthrowing those in authority may then be the only option, since you can no longer criticise them and win the argument that way.
The way to ensure the proper running of the system is to have daylight shone on the system and any critics able to speak freely. For the system to be challenged, which allows it to either be shown to be clean, or shown to not be.
You?
The Prime Minister?
A majority of the Commons?
The whole point of free speech is that its not restricted, that detrimental speech is not just allowed but protected.
If you insult me. If you suggest that I am dishonest and corrupt. If you traduce my good name, then I am not under any obligation to be your friend to protect your right to free speech. I am allowed to impose consequences on your speech by refusing to associate with you.
But your free speech is protected because I'm not threatening to cut your tongue out, or your typing fingers off, however sorely tempted I might be.
Do you not see that there is a big fucking difference there?
That's part of the problem. He's not just a private citizen or a media voice arguing against what has happened. He's one of the jurors who has to come to a verdict on the case. And he's already run to the media claiming it's a stitch up.
That's not really on.
Courts judge contempt of court, so firstly there's precedent for this. Secondly, there's a higher power than courts in this country, and that's parliament. If a court goes seriously egregiously wrong a final backstop to its waywardness is an act of parliament.
If we think of this committee as a court -- and I'm by no means certain we should -- then it is similarly subordinate to parliament. Parliament can wind up this committee, change its composition and so on. The committee serves at the pleasure of parliament.
Of course tyranny by parliament is possible. But that's already a theoretical problem we must wrangle with even absent of all this stuff about contempt and defamation and so on. Your "who watches the watchmen" challenge is valid, but the answer is "parliament".
Yes MPs should be free to decide they don't want to associate with Mogg. If Sunak wants to withdraw the whip, then that is OK. If people decide they don't want to sit next to him, then that is OK. That is not censorship.
Jeremy Corbyn had the whip removed, people chose not to associate with him etc - all perfectly reasonable, he's not been censored. He's still an MP, and he's still entitled to say any old bullshit that he wants to.
This principle of self-regulation is fundamental to Parliament's independence. It's a cornerstone of our democracy. The Commons has decided to establish a committee, it has elected the members of that committee, for the purpose of regulating Member's conduct.
So why should Rees-Mogg get a free pass?
Perhaps a lawyer can answer better but the closest to it seems to be the old offence of "scandalising the court" which was discussed here in 2012 and was last successfully used to prosecute someone in the 1930s: https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/06/cp207_Scandalising_the_Court.pdf
And scandalising the court was subsequently abolished by legislation in 2013: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/22/section/33
And it has been deemed unconstitutional in the USA and a violation of free speech there too.
So no, going off the courts, it seems courts are open to criticism, and that criticism is not contempt of court, even scandalous criticism anymore.
To allow some MPs to silence their critics of other MPs is profoundly undemocratic.
Boris Johnson’s Partygate inquisitor has been accused of breaking lockdown himself.
Tom Slater"
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/06/14/bernard-jenkin-and-the-pandemic-of-hypocrites/
I merely contend that the type of thing he's saying could, if serious enough in the judgement of the "court", attract some kind of censure. I'm not saying he should be punished. I'm saying that I'm ok with the idea of that being available as an option.
Courts have been routinely criticised, including on the front pages of news papers and more. If calling the judiciary "Enemies of the People" is not Contempt of Court, then why would calling the Privilege Committee "a kangaroo court" be Contempt?
The crime of contempt for criticising courts has been explicitly abolished by primary legislation. It can't attract censure, its free speech. Protected free speech. As it should be.
Damn low bar, admittedly.
Would you shop in a till-less store? Aldi's Shop&Go in Greenwich has divided customers."
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1779262/Aldi-shop-and-go-Greenwich-London
Only way they got WINSTON CHURCHILL to quit, was when he was too freaking old to (publicly) object.
EDIT: at least, any comments I've seen
Let’s be honest here. If a committee finds me guilty of wearing a dirty tee with tikka masala spilt down the front of it, and publicly publish I am a very naughty girl for this - but those on the committee have dirty tee with curry spilt down the front too, surely they have zero right or qualification to tell the world I’m naughty? I, and yourselves, should be able to refer to them as kangaroo’s in dirty t-shirts, without them sanctioning us for pointing that out, whenever it’s a matter of fact that are. That’s the truth isn’t it?
This report has to be binned now, not published, and decide if it’s worth pursuing again, now the committee has been left in a position they can’t possibly pass judgement when guilty of the same crimes at the heart of it.
Not everyone carries cash, yet some stores still only take cash. I won't shop at them as a result.
Its a free choice what people accept, and where people shop.
In which case modify everything I've been saying to "should". My feeling is that scandalising the court should still be a criminal offence. But in all the matters where I've said "could", that was wrong.
Not a big deal, since I didn't think JRM should be censured anyway and the point of principle I was making is one I would still defend: I would bring back that law.
This is problem with not being a lawyer. Something could disappear off the books a decade ago but you might never have noticed.