Tories thinking about financial penalties for deserters.
Anger among Conservative MPs at Chris Skidmore is palpable.
I’ve seen WhatsApp messages showing Anna Firth - PPS to the Home Secretary - asking “why should the taxpayer have to keep paying for all these unnecessary byelections?”.
She suggests: “Perhaps the rules need to change such that if an MP causes an unnecessary byelection out of choice within a year of a GE, they should bear the costs”.
I was thinking about pointing this out on linkedin when he got so much credit and applause for his 'net zero' stance. It turns out he has several outside consultancy related employments including £80k a year as an advisor to a company that capture emissions. So he should easily be in a position to pay up for the £250k for the by-election. Or just sit as an independent MP and use it as a platform for his thought leadership on net zero.
This is a typical example of an idea thrown up in a WhatsApp chat that sounds good for about 5 seconds, but is completely unworkable and stupid. Is it better to force someone to remain an MP, but pulling an O’Mara and not doing any work? You can’t force someone to do a job they don’t want to.
If the Tories don’t want to pay £250k for a by-election, they could have delayed calling the writ and then had a May general election. Problem solved!
Or, alternatively, they could pick better candidates? Or maybe they could stop U-turning on their own policies?
Are the Tories paying for the by-election? Or is it all of us?
Why is nobody witch-hunting the Tories for their role in the PO scandal?
I think Ed Davey has some (minor) questions to answer, and has handled the issue badly so far, but literally NOBODY is talking about the Tories, who have allegedly been running the country since 2010.
This tells us a lot, I think, about how news is manufactured in the UK.
No it doesn’t
It’s just a lot harder to find a particular Tory to lay the blame on. Davey was unfortunately in the hot seat at the worst moment, the SPMs have named him and shamed him, and he went on to work for the PO’s lawyers for lots of money. And he’s very fond of calling for people to resign
Plenty of that is bad luck. But not all of it
Also, we nearly all have concluded that this version of the Conservative Party is staffed by people whose evil is only mitigated by their incompetence. For them to do stupid nasty things isn't news, because Dog Bites Man never is.
Two things follow.
The important one is that the only Conservative hope is to establish a narrative that everyone else is as bad as them. Which is what the client press are running with.
The less important one is that some of the criticism is, at least a bit, justified. Probably not much, but some.
In Scotland the SNP are as bad as the Conservatives. Two parties in government. Both lining their own pockets. Both fixated by fringe issues to the detriment of basic governance. Both seeing declines in public services as taxes hit record levels.
We know that the later the election is postponed, the worse it will be for the Tories. I wonder if the same is true for the SNP?
Does anyone think Ed Davey will resign? I think he may do.
The LibDems on here will howl me down as a Tory stooge, but looked at as objectively as I can, I think he is in some real difficulty.
We are in an election year. This issue has come from nowhere (who thought Davey was in any difficulty 2 weeks ago?) and the issue causing him a problem is likely to have a serious impact on the political weather through to the election. Now, partly that may feed into an anti-government sentiment ("everything is broken!"). But it will focus down on individuals too.
As much as anybody knows anything about Davey, it is now first and foremost that "he has questions to answer over the PO fiasco". So he was lied to. But was he too incurious? Too gullible? Both big faults in a party leader.
The LibDem message going into the election is woefully thin, but such as it is depends on being "better than the Tories". A harder sell with Davey at the helm. He is also boxed in. He has to go quickly - or not at all. He can't say "I will step down after the election". Partly because that gives a good reason not to vote for him anyway. The last thing the LibDems need is to lose their leader at two elections in a row. But his voters have already thrown him out in 2015. Their love is not deep. A candidature against him by a wronged SPM is likely to attract the very voters the LibDems rely on.
The LibDems here will be better placed than me to know if Daisy (or another) is ready to step up as leader. But at least she has the benefit of not being "pale, male and stale" (although neither was Jo Swinson). But at least on the issue of the SPM's, she is at least a clean pair of hands and the Party can move on to more easily making the case "better than the Tories".
As one who worked for the old Liberal Party in the Thorpe years and afterwards, and who has since frequently voted LibDem, I agree that Davey would be wise to step back. Doing so is the right thing to do, although like many judges he can reasonably claim he was lied to by the Post Office senior management. It is to be hoped that before too long that senior management is standing in the dock at the Old Bailey.
Sir Ed Davey has another escape route. He could renounce his Sir-hood, just as Paula Vennells has un-CBE'd herself. That might show enough remorse to keep him in place as leader.
Does he value the leadership of the LDs more than his knighthood though?
What is his goal as LD leader? Presumably to see them do as well as possible in the GE and have more influence in the next parliament. They will not be joining and coalition though, so he is not in-line for a cabinet role.
Arguably, he would do most for the LDs now by resigning as a point of honour.
Political bettors and PB.com routinely overestimate the pressure for a resignation. Davey is not the main architect of the scandal. He is one of a dozen politicians from across all 3 (even 4) main parties who missed opportunities to do something, and he’s done more than most of those to apologise.
We’ve had many (welcome) headlines about the scandal in recent days. The vast majority make no mention of Davey. I doubt this has cut through with the public yet. Maybe it will in the future (a credible independent campaign in his constituency seems more of a threat). But there is currently no groundswell of opinion that will force Davey out.
Sunak has been fined by the police for breaking the law twice, and no one even bothers to mention it these days. Most issues that lead to calls for politicians’ resignations go nowhere.
It would be great to see some polling on all this. How many of the public are paying attention? Who do they think is to blame?
Yes, I imagine a 'Who's most to blame for the PO scandal' poll would right now have 1. Davey, 2. Starmer, 3. Vennells...
"One was funding - PO resources were effectively unlimited; those available to a defendant (even assuming they qualified for legal aid, which many wouldn't) were strictly limited.
The second was the burden of proof. Cyclefree was banged on about this repeatedly, but it bears another repetition."
Tories thinking about financial penalties for deserters.
Anger among Conservative MPs at Chris Skidmore is palpable.
I’ve seen WhatsApp messages showing Anna Firth - PPS to the Home Secretary - asking “why should the taxpayer have to keep paying for all these unnecessary byelections?”.
She suggests: “Perhaps the rules need to change such that if an MP causes an unnecessary byelection out of choice within a year of a GE, they should bear the costs”.
I was thinking about pointing this out on linkedin when he got so much credit and applause for his 'net zero' stance. It turns out he has several outside consultancy related employments including £80k a year as an advisor to a company that capture emissions. So he should easily be in a position to pay up for the £250k for the by-election. Or just sit as an independent MP and use it as a platform for his thought leadership on net zero.
This is a typical example of an idea thrown up in a WhatsApp chat that sounds good for about 5 seconds, but is completely unworkable and stupid. Is it better to force someone to remain an MP, but pulling an O’Mara and not doing any work? You can’t force someone to do a job they don’t want to.
If the Tories don’t want to pay £250k for a by-election, they could have delayed calling the writ and then had a May general election. Problem solved!
Or, alternatively, they could pick better candidates? Or maybe they could stop U-turning on their own policies?
Are the Tories paying for the by-election? Or is it all of us?
It is, of course, all of us, but that doesn’t make the suggestion any more sensible. I refer to the Tories as they are the ones complaining about the cost but also in charge of the timetable.
If the public think it an unnecessary cost, we could introduce co-option for any seat that falls vacant when a general election is less than a year ago.
Oh, better idea, fund the by-election by a special gambling tax on bets on the by-election’s outcome!
If I had a pound for every time I came across people involved in investigating, delivering or fixing IT issues saying: 'I'm not really technical', I'd be posting this from my yacht in the Caribbean.
If you're not technically minded why the f*ck are you taking the salary and pretending to do the job? Grrr!!
Senior IT staff who are "not really technical" earn the biggest bucks...
Tories thinking about financial penalties for deserters.
Anger among Conservative MPs at Chris Skidmore is palpable.
I’ve seen WhatsApp messages showing Anna Firth - PPS to the Home Secretary - asking “why should the taxpayer have to keep paying for all these unnecessary byelections?”.
She suggests: “Perhaps the rules need to change such that if an MP causes an unnecessary byelection out of choice within a year of a GE, they should bear the costs”.
I was thinking about pointing this out on linkedin when he got so much credit and applause for his 'net zero' stance. It turns out he has several outside consultancy related employments including £80k a year as an advisor to a company that capture emissions. So he should easily be in a position to pay up for the £250k for the by-election. Or just sit as an independent MP and use it as a platform for his thought leadership on net zero.
This is a typical example of an idea thrown up in a WhatsApp chat that sounds good for about 5 seconds, but is completely unworkable and stupid. Is it better to force someone to remain an MP, but pulling an O’Mara and not doing any work? You can’t force someone to do a job they don’t want to.
If the Tories don’t want to pay £250k for a by-election, they could have delayed calling the writ and then had a May general election. Problem solved!
Or, alternatively, they could pick better candidates? Or maybe they could stop U-turning on their own policies?
Are the Tories paying for the by-election? Or is it all of us?
It's the taxpayers of the local council/s, as I understand it.
But yes, it's easy to say 'unnecessary by-election' but what does that look like in practice? Where is the line between 'unnecessary' and 'justified'? Who decides?
I agree that Skidmore has behaved badly and petulantly, and maybe cynically too but I really don't think there's much that can be done to stop MPs behaving like that, if they really do want out of politics. I wonder if the Tory MPs irritated at the by-election would have held similar views in 2009 had it been a Labour MP jobbing off.
If I had a pound for every time I came across people involved in investigating, delivering or fixing IT issues saying: 'I'm not really technical', I'd be posting this from my yacht in the Caribbean.
If you're not technically minded why the f*ck are you taking the salary and pretending to do the job? Grrr!!
Doesn't appear to have been forensically minded, either.
...But he repeats the point about how he viewed this as an issue for the lawyers, even though he was the disclosure officer in the case...
If I had a pound for every time I came across people involved in investigating, delivering or fixing IT issues saying: 'I'm not really technical', I'd be posting this from my yacht in the Caribbean.
If you're not technically minded why the f*ck are you taking the salary and pretending to do the job? Grrr!!
Senior IT staff who are "not really technical" earn the biggest bucks...
I’ve built an entire career in an IT or IT-adjacent field without having the foggiest idea or interest in how it works.
Does anyone think Ed Davey will resign? I think he may do.
The LibDems on here will howl me down as a Tory stooge, but looked at as objectively as I can, I think he is in some real difficulty.
We are in an election year. This issue has come from nowhere (who thought Davey was in any difficulty 2 weeks ago?) and the issue causing him a problem is likely to have a serious impact on the political weather through to the election. Now, partly that may feed into an anti-government sentiment ("everything is broken!"). But it will focus down on individuals too.
As much as anybody knows anything about Davey, it is now first and foremost that "he has questions to answer over the PO fiasco". So he was lied to. But was he too incurious? Too gullible? Both big faults in a party leader.
The LibDem message going into the election is woefully thin, but such as it is depends on being "better than the Tories". A harder sell with Davey at the helm. He is also boxed in. He has to go quickly - or not at all. He can't say "I will step down after the election". Partly because that gives a good reason not to vote for him anyway. The last thing the LibDems need is to lose their leader at two elections in a row. But his voters have already thrown him out in 2015. Their love is not deep. A candidature against him by a wronged SPM is likely to attract the very voters the LibDems rely on.
The LibDems here will be better placed than me to know if Daisy (or another) is ready to step up as leader. But at least she has the benefit of not being "pale, male and stale" (although neither was Jo Swinson). But at least on the issue of the SPM's, she is at least a clean pair of hands and the Party can move on to more easily making the case "better than the Tories".
As one who worked for the old Liberal Party in the Thorpe years and afterwards, and who has since frequently voted LibDem, I agree that Davey would be wise to step back. Doing so is the right thing to do, although like many judges he can reasonably claim he was lied to by the Post Office senior management. It is to be hoped that before too long that senior management is standing in the dock at the Old Bailey.
Sir Ed Davey has another escape route. He could renounce his Sir-hood, just as Paula Vennells has un-CBE'd herself. That might show enough remorse to keep him in place as leader.
Does he value the leadership of the LDs more than his knighthood though?
What is his goal as LD leader? Presumably to see them do as well as possible in the GE and have more influence in the next parliament. They will not be joining and coalition though, so he is not in-line for a cabinet role.
Arguably, he would do most for the LDs now by resigning as a point of honour.
Political bettors and PB.com routinely overestimate the pressure for a resignation. Davey is not the main architect of the scandal. He is one of a dozen politicians from across all 3 (even 4) main parties who missed opportunities to do something, and he’s done more than most of those to apologise.
We’ve had many (welcome) headlines about the scandal in recent days. The vast majority make no mention of Davey. I doubt this has cut through with the public yet. Maybe it will in the future (a credible independent campaign in his constituency seems more of a threat). But there is currently no groundswell of opinion that will force Davey out.
Sunak has been fined by the police for breaking the law twice, and no one even bothers to mention it these days. Most issues that lead to calls for politicians’ resignations go nowhere.
It would be great to see some polling on all this. How many of the public are paying attention? Who do they think is to blame?
I don't think it's really a question of any pressure to resign. What pressure there is comes from those with morally compromised and deeply vested interests in the matter
It's more whether it might be possible he decides it's the right thing to do.
The more pressure there is, the less likely he is to resign, as it might be viewed as accepting the nonsense from the likes of Farage has some solid basis.
Comments
Two parties in government. Both lining their own pockets. Both fixated by fringe issues to the detriment of basic governance. Both seeing declines in public services as taxes hit record levels.
We know that the later the election is postponed, the worse it will be for the Tories. I wonder if the same is true for the SNP?
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4653009#Comment_4653009
From @Nigelb on the previous thread:
"One was funding - PO resources were effectively unlimited; those available to a defendant (even assuming they qualified for legal aid, which many wouldn't) were strictly limited.
The second was the burden of proof. Cyclefree was banged on about this repeatedly, but it bears another repetition."
A typo, I hope .......
I can confirm it was an innocent typo. Apologies.
If the public think it an unnecessary cost, we could introduce co-option for any seat that falls vacant when a general election is less than a year ago.
Oh, better idea, fund the by-election by a special gambling tax on bets on the by-election’s outcome!
But yes, it's easy to say 'unnecessary by-election' but what does that look like in practice? Where is the line between 'unnecessary' and 'justified'? Who decides?
I agree that Skidmore has behaved badly and petulantly, and maybe cynically too but I really don't think there's much that can be done to stop MPs behaving like that, if they really do want out of politics. I wonder if the Tory MPs irritated at the by-election would have held similar views in 2009 had it been a Labour MP jobbing off.
...But he repeats the point about how he viewed this as an issue for the lawyers, even though he was the disclosure officer in the case...
If Yousless hangs on longer cos the GE is delayed, the threat of a challenge diminishes until after the next Holyrood vote
It's more whether it might be possible he decides it's the right thing to do.
The more pressure there is, the less likely he is to resign, as it might be viewed as accepting the nonsense from the likes of Farage has some solid basis.
Lib Dems ask Ofcom to investigate GB News over Ed Davey criticism
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/jan/11/lib-dems-ask-ofcom-to-investigate-gb-news-over-ed-davey-criticism
NEW THREAD