Mr. Fett, the Conservatives are the least bad of three uninspiring options. Their desire for ever more surveillance and police powers is depressing (although I was delighted they axed Labour's Big Brother ID card insanity). Not enough has been done on energy, the greenism is madness, and Defence cuts (given it was the only department not force-fed money during Brown's binge) are not something I agree with.
I've voted for four parties. Presumably you think I'm a supporter of all four.
No. I think you are a Tory as you want a Tory government. It's quite simple really!
Mr. Socrates, he wasn't saying "support me because X, Y, Z" he was saying "ah, you hate my brother. Well, that's understandable... of course, if you really hate him and want him to lose, you should back me". It wasn't about policy or personality, it was a completely negative approach, reminiscent of the Tory-hating that the left like to indulge in.
It's absolutely reasonable for you to say to a constituency, "look, I know I'm not your favourite choice, but you prefer me to the frontrunner and I have the best chance of beating him." This is a long standing tactic that everyone uses. The Lib Dems use it against Labour, Labour use it against the Lib Dems, the Tories use it against UKIP.
Besides, this is the first time I've even heard this criticism. By far the dominant problem that people seem to have is that Ed didn't just say "well, I'm the youngest so I'll stand aside for my elders". It's absurd and unmeritocratic.
Mr. Socrates, he wasn't saying "support me because X, Y, Z" he was saying "ah, you hate my brother. Well, that's understandable... of course, if you really hate him and want him to lose, you should back me". It wasn't about policy or personality, it was a completely negative approach, reminiscent of the Tory-hating that the left like to indulge in.
We see it repeated all the time. E. Miliband's against this and that, and the other. What's he in favour of? Magic beans and money trees, more jobs for people, cheaper things for people, a combination of things so vague and positive nobody could disagree and specific policies that range from questionable to deranged, with an economic approach (to energy) so ridiculous it was out of date in the 4th century.
Perhaps it'll change in the coming months (post-referendum, either way) when we see Labour's policies unfurled for the election. I doubt it.
I must say that Labour’s “policy” announcements to date are what keep me from joining the LD to Lab switch!
Too early for policies. If they are any good, the government will just nick them. As we saw with energy.
Morning all. The mob got their witch and are enjoying the smell of burning flesh, completely uninterested in the facts of the case.
Nick Robinson on the Today programme said he'd been told that there would not for the moment be a general reshuffle, just a single promotion to fill the position made vacant by the witch-burning. If true, that strikes me as a mistake; I'd have thought it was an opportunity to seize the initiative and move decisively on to new ground with a refreshed team. It's not as though the vacancy has arisen without warning; if he wished, Cameron could easily have worked out contingency plans for a reshuffle over the last few days.
It won't go unnoticed that Miller has resigned not because of any wrong doing, or that she feels that she has not reached the standard that we should expect from our politicians, but only because she has become a distraction.
Mr. Socrates, he wasn't saying "support me because X, Y, Z" he was saying "ah, you hate my brother. Well, that's understandable... of course, if you really hate him and want him to lose, you should back me". It wasn't about policy or personality, it was a completely negative approach, reminiscent of the Tory-hating that the left like to indulge in.
We see it repeated all the time. E. Miliband's against this and that, and the other. What's he in favour of? Magic beans and money trees, more jobs for people, cheaper things for people, a combination of things so vague and positive nobody could disagree and specific policies that range from questionable to deranged, with an economic approach (to energy) so ridiculous it was out of date in the 4th century.
Perhaps it'll change in the coming months (post-referendum, either way) when we see Labour's policies unfurled for the election. I doubt it.
I must say that Labour’s “policy” announcements to date are what keep me from joining the LD to Lab switch!
Too early for policies. If they are any good, the government will just nick them. As we saw with energy.
Quite right, politics is all about timing. Why reveal your hand now?
Mr. Socrates, he wasn't saying "support me because X, Y, Z" he was saying "ah, you hate my brother. Well, that's understandable... of course, if you really hate him and want him to lose, you should back me". It wasn't about policy or personality, it was a completely negative approach, reminiscent of the Tory-hating that the left like to indulge in.
We see it repeated all the time. E. Miliband's against this and that, and the other. What's he in favour of? Magic beans and money trees, more jobs for people, cheaper things for people, a combination of things so vague and positive nobody could disagree and specific policies that range from questionable to deranged, with an economic approach (to energy) so ridiculous it was out of date in the 4th century.
Perhaps it'll change in the coming months (post-referendum, either way) when we see Labour's policies unfurled for the election. I doubt it.
Please list three of Labour's policies which are deranged. Not in your opinion: in fact. And give evidence.
Alternatively, you could always abuse me.
1) Energy policy, for the reasons many of us have given on here passim. In particular, the way it damns Miliband by his own words when in charge at DECC.
2) The land-grab planning rule, again for the reasons given on here passim.
Will that do for starters? It's hard to add any more as they don't really seem to have many firm policies.
As with so many of this things, I very much doubt Ed and David's travails have any salience with the public.
The only people it seems to bother are Tory PBers like Morris and Josias who express deep and heartfelt concern for David Miliband and the effect on Milibandian familial relations.
I can't tell you how surprised I am that you think that a part of Ed Miliband's back story that is unflattering to him lacks salience.
It's more or less the only thing the public know about him.
Salience doesn't mean "aware of". It means "care about".
Mr Fett, please give the dictionary reference for your definition as it does not mean "care about" in the six dictionaries that I have to hand.
It's not ancient history for as long as Ed Miliband is leader. And while I agree with you that Ed Miliband did nothing wrong, that's not the public's view.
Citation needed (i.e. a poll) - you're always interesting, but I wonder how much you're in touch with most voters.
I meet hundreds of voters every week. A number are critical of Miliband, Cameron, Clegg and any other poltician you care to name, for all the familiar reasons. But nobody has ever mentioned Ed standing against his brother. I suspect people don't care one way or the other - they don't think it's treacherous, or brave, or anything except a mildly curious fact. Cameron can raise it if he wants to.
I would have thought a politician would understand the concept of a debating point.
As I noted at the start, David Cameron needs something to get through Prime Minister's Questions. Attack is the best form of defence, and impugning your opposite number is as good a way to go as any, especially if it involves the deployment of a well-known fact.
By the way, if you lecture other posters, as you did yesterday, about aggressive posting, you have to hold yourself to the same standards. You likened me to a BNP supporter with no cause and never apologised.
Morning all. The mob got their witch and are enjoying the smell of burning flesh, completely uninterested in the facts of the case.
Nick Robinson on the Today programme said he'd been told that there would not for the moment be a general reshuffle, just a single promotion to fill the position made vacant by the witch-burning. If true, that strikes me as a mistake; I'd have thought it was an opportunity to seize the initiative and move decisively on to new ground with a refreshed team. It's not as though the vacancy has arisen without warning; if he wished, Cameron could easily have worked out contingency plans for a reshuffle over the last few days.
I am sure that if this was a Labour MP you would also be decrying the press hunting that has gone on. The fact that those throwing most wood on the fire was the right wing press was one of the most entertaining parts of this "scandal".
It won't go unnoticed that Miller has resigned not because of any wrong doing, or that she feels that she has not reached the standard that we should expect from our politicians, but only because she has become a distraction.
Bullying won the day.
No it didn't. Her bullying of the press got her deeper into trouble.
It's like the worst days of John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
She won't quit. I'm standing by her. Shes doing a good job. She won't quit. She's doing a good job. I'm standing by my Minister. She's doing a good job. She won't quit. I'm standing by her. She won't quit. She's doing a good job. Draw a line and move on. She won't quit....
Bye Maria!
What saddens me is that I can't imagine it not happening in the next Parliament, either.
It is the price we all pay for a free press, IA.
If the press pursued a defendant acquitted by a criminal court with the same venom they spit at Cabinet Ministers the politicians would soon curtail media power.
Morning all. The mob got their witch and are enjoying the smell of burning flesh, completely uninterested in the facts of the case.
Nick Robinson on the Today programme said he'd been told that there would not for the moment be a general reshuffle, just a single promotion to fill the position made vacant by the witch-burning. If true, that strikes me as a mistake; I'd have thought it was an opportunity to seize the initiative and move decisively on to new ground with a refreshed team. It's not as though the vacancy has arisen without warning; if he wished, Cameron could easily have worked out contingency plans for a reshuffle over the last few days.
You always accuse those who disagree with you as being "uninterested in the facts" on every single issue debated on here. How about you answer these questions, on the facts?
- Why did she need to pay thousands of pounds if she'd not done anything wrong? - Why did a woman who was on the ball enough to claim 99.9% of the limit unable to find any of her records? - How come she couldn't track down not just one, but four au pairs to back up her claim she lived in her primary residence most of the time? - Why was she ordered to apologise to parliament if she hadn't behaved badly in the investigation? - How appropriate is it for her office to raise her interaction with a journalist's boss over her role in regulating the press?
There's a catalog of poor behaviour here that's pretty clear to anyone that's interested in the facts and not a die-hard Cameroon loyalist.
1) Energy policy, for the reasons many of us have given on here passim. In particular, the way it damns Miliband by his own words when in charge at DECC.
2) The land-grab planning rule, again for the reasons given on here passim.
Will that do for starters? It's hard to add any more as they don't really seem to have many firm policies.
You could add: Fining housebuilding companies for having the temerity to buy land to build houses on later, and (I think this one is the barmiest of all) disallowing them from advertising their homes in places where foreigners might see the adverts, which presumably includes Rightmove.
Was it a witch hunt? "I wouldn't criticise the press. I wouldn't go there," says Michael Gove #r4today
That should delight some of the most obsequious Cameroons.
I am endearing to Mr Gove. Sat there getting his strings pulled by Mr Murdoch, unable to attack the press and flying against what has been posted on here and upsetting Cameroons alike. "Witch hunt....what witch hunt"...."Sorry Rupert, is that what you want me to say?".
"Actually, I think Cameron is a fairly simple, decent person.
He took the view that Miller was found non guilty and therefore should not be punished.
He ignored the politics of course"
The niavety in that post is amazing. You think Cameron didn't chop her because she was found not guilty and he is a decent fair person and there was no other reason why he or anyone in the cabinet didn't give her a nudge....Christ on a bike.
Labour activists going for an 'innuendo about expenses' strategy now?
This should be fun to watch, since the chances of it backfiring spectacularly are high.
It's all fun to watch, the last six days have been very entertaining.
I guess it's a nice distraction from Labour's potential Scottish Apocalypse.
Lots of bad temper building up on here this morning, predictable but a shame. When someone calls Morris Dancer a right-wing Tory then the plot is being lost and there is no value left in the discussion.
For my money, the only person to emerge with ant credit from the whole Miller saga is TSE. I hope he had enough on at 14/1 to afford some new shoes with which to dazzle us at the PB bash in May.
"Actually, I think Cameron is a fairly simple, decent person.
He took the view that Miller was found non guilty and therefore should not be punished.
He ignored the politics of course"
The niavety in that post is amazing. You think Cameron didn't chop her because she was found not guilty and he is a decent fair person and there was no other reason why he or anyone in the cabinet didn't give her a nudge....Christ on a bike.
Labour activists going for an 'innuendo about expenses' strategy now?
This should be fun to watch, since the chances of it backfiring spectacularly are high.
It's all fun to watch, the last six days have been very entertaining.
I guess it's a nice distraction from Labour's potential Scottish Apocalypse.
Mr. Fett, the Conservatives are the least bad of three uninspiring options. Their desire for ever more surveillance and police powers is depressing (although I was delighted they axed Labour's Big Brother ID card insanity). Not enough has been done on energy, the greenism is madness, and Defence cuts (given it was the only department not force-fed money during Brown's binge) are not something I agree with.
I've voted for four parties. Presumably you think I'm a supporter of all four.
No. I think you are a Tory as you want a Tory government. It's quite simple really!
I suppose it must be difficult for people who are diehard party loyalists to try to understand people with a more independent mindset.
Was it a witch hunt? "I wouldn't criticise the press. I wouldn't go there," says Michael Gove #r4today
That should delight some of the most obsequious Cameroons.
I am endearing to Mr Gove. Sat there getting his strings pulled by Mr Murdoch, unable to attack the press and flying against what has been posted on here and upsetting Cameroons alike. "Witch hunt....what witch hunt"...."Sorry Rupert, is that what you want me to say?".
You might very well think that, I could not possibly be allowed to comment.
Avery you're doing a rather desperate defence job talking about due pprocess. This is POLITICS. She is required to apologise to the House, makes a tweet length statement which gets received by her own side in disbelieving silence, and then has the Tory press, the 22 and Tory councillors calling for her to go for bringing the party into disrepute.
This is ppolitics. She could have survived the expenses report. She couldn't survive her contemptuous "apology". A sensible chap like you can see this surely?
"The cost of the opening and closing ceremonies at this year's Commonwealth Games has risen by almost half.
Organisers Glasgow 2014 confirmed that the combined cost of both events was now £20,850,000 - up £6,850,000 or 49% on the 2012 estimate of £14m."
Now some might wonder why have the opening and closing ceremonies at two different venues ? Some might wonder why the venue for the opening ceremony isn't hosting any events ? Some might wonder if the number of season ticket holders for the venue of the opening ceremony who are also councillors is a factor - to those people I say - what a cynical bunch.
So, as things stand, by next May, Ed Miliband will probably be the hapless prime minister of a rump UK negotiating the break up of Britain.
Difficult to think of a gloomier prospect. I'm glad I'm off to the Australian wilderness for a few weeks. I might stay there.
Ed Miliband is almost certain to be the next PM, but this despairing over Scotland needs to stop. The polls are still very clearly in favour of the union.
Avery you're doing a rather desperate defence job talking about due pprocess. This is POLITICS. She is required to apologise to the House, makes a tweet length statement which gets received by her own side in disbelieving silence, and then has the Tory press, the 22 and Tory councillors calling for her to go for bringing the party into disrepute.
This is ppolitics. She could have survived the expenses report. She couldn't survive her contemptuous "apology". A sensible chap like you can see this surely?
If the length of her statement is a failing, then I guess Jack Dromey's 50-odd second 'apology' to the house over a much greater sum - £57,000 - which he did not report is also terrible?
This is getting stupid. It's a feeding frenzy of semi-intelligent sharks after a witch-hunt (presumably involving a ducking-stool).
Mr. Fett, why don't you let me decide what my political position is?
I'd vote Lib Dem if it'd get rid of Balls. But it won't, so I won't.
I find it utterly bizarre that those who support a Tory government, want it to continue and are happy to vote for it are reluctant to declare themselves a supporter of it. No wonder the party has got toxicity issues.
As it stands, they are a means to preserving the financial integrity of the country and stopping the left getting their grubby hands in my taxes and wasting it. Labour must never be allowed in power again, as for the Tories, I'll drop them the second a liberal, progressive, fiscally hard right option appears to wipe the stain of liblabcon off the face of the country.
So, as things stand, by next May, Ed Miliband will probably be the hapless prime minister of a rump UK negotiating the break up of Britain.
Difficult to think of a gloomier prospect. I'm glad I'm off to the Australian wilderness for a few weeks. I might stay there.
Ed Miliband is almost certain to be the next PM, but this despairing over Scotland needs to stop. The polls are still very clearly in favour of the union.
Yes, there's no way a 3 point gap can be closed in a year. Impossible.
Morning all. The mob got their witch and are enjoying the smell of burning flesh, completely uninterested in the facts of the case.
That's a disappointing response as the "mob" was "led" by elements who would likely support the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party and work for an overall majority next year.
As I said earlier, I don't dispute Maria Miller's "innocence" in parliamentary terms but that isn't and never has been the point. To many among the public, her behaviour resonates with the worst examples of the expenses scandal not so much for the sums involved but for her seeming unrepentance and obfuscation.
As others have said, had she made proper contrition in the HoC last week and perhaps resigned, it would have been argued with justification that while she had fallen short of the standards of high office, she had salvaged considerable dignity from events.
The impression of a Minister trying to squirm and evade and cling onto her job is about as bad as it gets in political terms - if nothing else, the Government, which needs all the time and positive Press it can get, has lost valuable days projecting its own positive agenda because of this.
Morning all. The mob got their witch and are enjoying the smell of burning flesh, completely uninterested in the facts of the case.
Richard, you've got to admit the attempted cover up looked back and it was compounded by the 30 second "apology." That's what did her in rather than the actually fiddling her expense's.
Mr. Fett, there isn't a Conservative Government to support. And I'm amused you seem to think that if I say I'm a rightwinger it is The Truth, whereas if I say I'm not a Conservative it's A Lie.
Avery you're doing a rather desperate defence job talking about due pprocess. This is POLITICS. She is required to apologise to the House, makes a tweet length statement which gets received by her own side in disbelieving silence, and then has the Tory press, the 22 and Tory councillors calling for her to go for bringing the party into disrepute.
This is ppolitics. She could have survived the expenses report. She couldn't survive her contemptuous "apology". A sensible chap like you can see this surely?
If the length of her statement is a failing, then I guess Jack Dromey's 50-odd second 'apology' to the house over a much greater sum - £57,000 - which he did not report is also terrible?
This is getting stupid. It's a feeding frenzy of semi-intelligent sharks after a witch-hunt (presumably involving a ducking-stool).
Avery you're doing a rather desperate defence job talking about due pprocess. This is POLITICS. She is required to apologise to the House, makes a tweet length statement which gets received by her own side in disbelieving silence, and then has the Tory press, the 22 and Tory councillors calling for her to go for bringing the party into disrepute.
This is ppolitics. She could have survived the expenses report. She couldn't survive her contemptuous "apology". A sensible chap like you can see this surely?
If the length of her statement is a failing, then I guess Jack Dromey's 50-odd second 'apology' to the house over a much greater sum - £57,000 - which he did not report is also terrible?
This is getting stupid. It's a feeding frenzy of semi-intelligent sharks after a witch-hunt (presumably involving a ducking-stool).
Avery you're doing a rather desperate defence job talking about due pprocess. This is POLITICS. She is required to apologise to the House, makes a tweet length statement which gets received by her own side in disbelieving silence, and then has the Tory press, the 22 and Tory councillors calling for her to go for bringing the party into disrepute.
This is ppolitics. She could have survived the expenses report. She couldn't survive her contemptuous "apology". A sensible chap like you can see this surely?
If the length of her statement is a failing, then I guess Jack Dromey's 50-odd second 'apology' to the house over a much greater sum - £57,000 - which he did not report is also terrible?
Yes! Whoever said contempt for parliament was party political?
So, as things stand, by next May, Ed Miliband will probably be the hapless prime minister of a rump UK negotiating the break up of Britain.
Difficult to think of a gloomier prospect. I'm glad I'm off to the Australian wilderness for a few weeks. I might stay there.
Ed Miliband is almost certain to be the next PM, but this despairing over Scotland needs to stop. The polls are still very clearly in favour of the union.
Yes, there's no way a 3 point gap can be closed in a year. Impossible.
You're arguing with a straw man. I've never said it was impossible, I've just said that the polling is in unionist favour, thus there's no need to despair.
So, as things stand, by next May, Ed Miliband will probably be the hapless prime minister of a rump UK negotiating the break up of Britain.
Difficult to think of a gloomier prospect. I'm glad I'm off to the Australian wilderness for a few weeks. I might stay there.
Ed Miliband is almost certain to be the next PM, but this despairing over Scotland needs to stop. The polls are still very clearly in favour of the union.
I've no intention of spending another day on pb swithering about indyref, it's far too sunny. But you are wrong about the polls. The latest (including ICM) show a clear and serious tightening; and if the trend continues, and at the moment there's no reason to believe it won't, then YES wins.
And with that, breakfast, work, and a nice long walk in the park.
Nate Silver has shown on a number of occasions that a movement of the polls in one direction is not predictive of a further movement of the polls in the same direction. "Momentum" is a myth in politics. Yes, you can find examples of it happening, but there's a huge degree of confirmation bias here. We notice when we look back over a long period if there's been an ongoing change, but not when it moves a few points one way, and then back the other.
Impact on the opinion polls to date of this: negligible. It may have more now that she's gone, particularly if it leads onto a dance of the seven veils.
It won't directly impact VI. What it does is add colour to base opinions that punters and party members have about Cameron. For a man who has never shaken off the accusations of being apart from normal people and normal Tories deciding to cling to Miller because her apology to the house was Ok and anyway I need a few tomen women in cabinet doesn't help him to shake this off.
For those formally of the Tory hinterlands who went purple it just reinforces their decision. For "real" Tories it reinforces their dislike of their leader as they head ibro Yerp elections they wI'll almost certainly have a bad result in.
For Cameron and those placemen around him, this must all be truly baffling. Cameron truly is the heir to Blair, uncomfortable in his own party, contemptuous of Parliament and so aloof that basic political instinct on such issues doesn't seem to work the way it does for anyone else.
Actually, I think Cameron is a fairly simple, decent person.
He took the view that Miller was found non guilty and therefore should not be punished.
He ignored the politics of course.
*However* my view is this was entirely Miller's fault. If she had made a gracious apology to the House she might have got away with it. Arrogance invites a fall
If she'd done nothing wrong why was she asked, even by the utterly partial committee of MPs, to (a) pay back thousands of pounds and (b) apologise to the Commons?
I didn't say she had done nothing wrong - he was found not guilty of the primary charge. During the investigation it was discovered _ and accepted bby othe the Commisioner & Committee - she had made an unintentional error in claiming £5,800000 of expenses. So she quite rightly paid that back and was asked to apologise.
So, as things stand, by next May, Ed Miliband will probably be the hapless prime minister of a rump UK negotiating the break up of Britain.
Difficult to think of a gloomier prospect. I'm glad I'm off to the Australian wilderness for a few weeks. I might stay there.
Ed Miliband is almost certain to be the next PM, but this despairing over Scotland needs to stop. The polls are still very clearly in favour of the union.
Yes, there's no way a 3 point gap can be closed in a year. Impossible.
Don't worry.
I'm sure Wee Dougie Alexander will manage to close it, all by himself, since there won't be anyone left in the office to help him.
Maria Miller's expense mess was a hand grenade with the pin pulled out for the past few weeks. The politics of it have been very badly handled, notwithstanding that the Prime Minister wanted to stand somebody who he felt had been badly shafted by the press (cf Plebgate).
That said, Miller only had to stand down. Labour expense cheats are the real McCoy - they get sent down.
David Cameron hopes Maria Miller will return to the front bench "in due course". Is he completely barking mad? #toxicwiththevoters @LBC
It's reassuring to see Cammie back to his stunning PR 'best' as his hilarious Asda photoshoot a few days ago was a clear sign that he'd got his PR comedy mojo back. It's amazing that his inept spinners can still be so massively out of touch.
As someone interested in facts, logic and all that Enlightenment rubbish the Maria Miller affair has been a painful episode in British public life.
The media have been very careful to report two facts:
1. That the independent commissioner's report concluded that Maria Miller should repay £45,000.
2. That the committee of MPs reduced this amount to £5,800.
Almost without exception they have omitted to report that this reduction was due to Maria Miller presenting further evidence and was a reduction agreed to by the independent commissioner - ie there was no sense in which the committee of MPs overruled the independent commissioner.
By omitting this key fact the media have created an entirely false impression of the facts of the case in the mind of the public. There is a reason that the oath one is asked to take in court is not only to tell the truth, but to tell the whole truth. A partial account of the truth can be as misleading as the most brazen lie.
Perhaps Maria Miller would have survived if she had been more contrite in her statement to Parliament, or if some other detail in the way this was handled had been different. Perhaps she did not deserve to remain in the Cabinet after being found guilty of incorrectly claiming her expenses. However, in my view it is the complete failure of journalistic ethics that is most worrying.
There can be no meaningful public debate if there is not accurate reporting of facts in the media. In the absence of meaningful public debate voting becomes pointless, because it is conducted on the basis of falsehoods and deception.
- Why did she need to pay thousands of pounds if she'd not done anything wrong? - Why did a woman who was on the ball enough to claim 99.9% of the limit unable to find any of her records? - How come she couldn't track down not just one, but four au pairs to back up her claim she lived in her primary residence most of the time? - Why was she ordered to apologise to parliament if she hadn't behaved badly in the investigation? - How appropriate is it for her office to raise her interaction with a journalist's boss over her role in regulating the press?
There's a catalog of poor behaviour here that's pretty clear to anyone that's interested in the facts and not a die-hard Cameroon loyalist.
In order:
- Because she had, as she herself discovered, inadvertently failed to adjust her claim when interest rates fell,. She corrected this mistake as soon as she discovered it, and immediately paid back the inadvertent over-claim. Both the standards commissioner and the Commitee accepted that this was an honest mistake. I imagine you are not suggesting that she, alone of all MPs in a similar position, should have resigned over that? If so, why her particularly?
- Why should she keep irrelevant records of over ten years ago, before she was an MP? Oh, and you've managed smear her for claiming '99.9%' of the entitlement. (Did you invent this figure?). That was the system at the time: MPs were asked to produce claims up to but not exceeding the maximum.
- That is a perfect example of a nasty witch-hunting smear. You set some impossible and irrelevant test, and then castigate her for not carrying it out. The standards commissioner (whose judgement you are so keen to accept when it suits your prejudice) rejected the complain that there was anything wrong in her designation of principal residence, and that was fully accepted by the committee.
- She did behave badly during the investigation, as I have repeatedly agreed, and as is generally accepted. That was why the Committee, very fairly, criticised her and told her to apologise to the House, which she did. If your argument were that, on this ground alone, she should have gone further and resigned, you'd have an arguable case.
- It was not her, but her aide, who raised the question of the Telegraph journalist doorstepping her elderly and sick parents - exactly the kind of behaviour Leveson was about. I accept that this might have been unwise.
Finally - yes, there is some poor behaviour. If the criticism had been limited to the poor behaviour, one could have an honest and fact-based discussion about whether it was a resigning matter.
I must say, I do find it ironic, that you - someone who claims to be really concerned about civil liberties - seem to completely lose all sense of traditional English fairness and objectivity when it comes to thhis case.
Wonder what would happen if another cabinet minister was found to have done more or less the same thing as Miller and it was revealed, lets just say just before the Euros ;-)
The front benches of all parties have MPs who have claimed the same or similar expenses to Maria Miller.
As good place to start, if you want to continue the witch hunt, would be Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper.
But there are plenty more.
It wasn't just the expenses though. It was her convenient lack of records and her refusal to co-operate with the inquiry.
I am not with you on that one, Socrates.
It reminds me of my pet hate. Policemen talking to camera after securing a conviction on a non-guilty plea and claiming the convicted "never showed any remorse".
A 'defendant' has a right to fight their case in accordance with the 'law' and the consequences of restricting such a right are far worse than tolerating its mild abuse.
I think Stodge has it right by pointing to lack of humility in her apology (even by comparison with Jack Dromey FFS!) and, generally, her poor handling of peer and public alike.
In general terms I think you're right, however the public view a cabinet position - especially if the politician concerned is a bit of a political non-entity like Ms Miller, as a privilege. She had every right to fight her case - but should also have been aware of how it looked politically. It was also utterly self-defeating as it made an honest error (if you back her) look like something far more sinister. It's not like being investigated by the police - ostensibly IPSA and the standards commissioner are there to do MPs a favour by ensuring that their expenses and work arrangements don't leave a bad smell which creates bigger problems later on, as such the sensible thing would be to co-operate fully, however much she felt she was being unfairly picked on.
Most of those softly sticking the knife in weren't Labour MPs but Tories - those very annoyed that her behaviour could cost them votes, rather than opposition MPs desperate for a scalp. They may sympathise with some of the intricacies of the case, but that someone shown to have such poor political judgement shouldn't have the privilege of being a leading representative of their party.
David Cameron hopes Maria Miller will return to the front bench "in due course". Is he completely barking mad? #toxicwiththevoters @LBC
It's reassuring to see Cammie back to his stunning PR 'best' as his hilarious Asda photoshoot a few days ago was a clear sign that he'd got his PR comedy mojo back.
Pork - did DC not say the same to Liam Fox about a return ? Were you frothing at the mouth in a similar manner then ? If so all that flecking spittle was for nothing.
Avery you're doing a rather desperate defence job talking about due pprocess. This is POLITICS. She is required to apologise to the House, makes a tweet length statement which gets received by her own side in disbelieving silence, and then has the Tory press, the 22 and Tory councillors calling for her to go for bringing the party into disrepute.
This is ppolitics. She could have survived the expenses report. She couldn't survive her contemptuous "apology". A sensible chap like you can see this surely?
If you aspire after being PB's "left-wing Avery", you should first read my posts.
I have already commented on her apology. It was not it's length that offended: it was her tone.
On whether a fully contrite apology would have avoided the witch hunt, I fear this is counterfactual speculation.
Possibly Maria's best survival tactics would have been to announce that she had offered her resignation to the PM and for Cameron later to say it had not been accepted. But this also is speculation.
Disregard of due process and contraverting the authority of proper determination is no cause for celebration, regardless of "politics", whatever their colour.
Mr. Fett, why don't you let me decide what my political position is?
I'd vote Lib Dem if it'd get rid of Balls. But it won't, so I won't.
I find it utterly bizarre that those who support a Tory government, want it to continue and are happy to vote for it are reluctant to declare themselves a supporter of it. No wonder the party has got toxicity issues.
I think you'll find John Major lost power in 1997.
Mr. Fett, the Conservatives are the least bad of three uninspiring options. Their desire for ever more surveillance and police powers is depressing (although I was delighted they axed Labour's Big Brother ID card insanity). Not enough has been done on energy, the greenism is madness, and Defence cuts (given it was the only department not force-fed money during Brown's binge) are not something I agree with.
I've voted for four parties. Presumably you think I'm a supporter of all four.
It seems that on some things people must stay what they started off as, and on others they get to choose depending on how they feel at the time
Most of those softly sticking the knife in weren't Labour MPs but Tories
Yes - because the bulk of dispirited Tory MP's who until recently thought the next election was lost now think after the Budget and the economic stats that the next election is far from lost.
That is quite an interesting element of the Miller affair....
Were you frothing at the mouth in a similar manner then ? If so all that flecking spittle was for nothing.
What on earth are you shrieking and babbling about now Harold? Liam Fox was obviously comedy Gold but I certainly didn't predicate anything on the incompetent fop promising his return.
You do seem a bit rattled Harold, why not calm down dear?
So, as things stand, by next May, Ed Miliband will probably be the hapless prime minister of a rump UK negotiating the break up of Britain.
Difficult to think of a gloomier prospect. I'm glad I'm off to the Australian wilderness for a few weeks. I might stay there.
Ed Miliband is almost certain to be the next PM, but this despairing over Scotland needs to stop. The polls are still very clearly in favour of the union.
Yes, there's no way a 3 point gap can be closed in a year. Impossible.
You're arguing with a straw man. I've never said it was impossible, I've just said that the polling is in unionist favour, thus there's no need to despair.
Indeed. I was conflating unionism with the apparent certainty of Ed being our next pm. That is far from certain.
Strange how so many people who support a Tory government and vote Tory deny they are Tories. Is it some sort of insult?!
Yes. Like being a Labour apologist. We vote for least harm, not because we red heart political classes and parties. I'm not a Tory, I'm rather better than that. I'd hope you see yourself as rather more than a dull red flag waver.
I bet Cam is crapping himself at facing 'an expense saint', who leads a party of troughers and has five former comrades who gone done bird for fiddling. Go on expenses Ed, bury yourself.
Mr. Fett, it's irritating when someone else tries to tell me what my political position is. You remind me of someone at school who once idiotically claimed I was an Anglican after I'd said I was an atheist. There's nothing wrong with being an Anglican; there is something wrong with another person who thinks they know better than me what my own political (or religious) worldview is.
Why David Cameron isn't Being Hard on Maria Miller
"Below is the account I wrote some years ago about David Cameron's extraordinary escape from scrutiny over his very large expenses claims. The strange unwillingness of the media to follow this story is paralleled today by their equal unwillingness to examine Michael Gove's decision to spurn Burlington Danes Academy, a school he has personally loaded with extravagant praise, which is a short walk from his London home, and instead send his daughter to an elite school some miles from his home. Labour politicians who did this were (rightly) subjected to a good deal of scrutiny. Mr Gove's decision, by contrast, has been portrayed as a praiseworthy egalitarian move.I mention this to point out that a story needs more than just interesting, even surprising facts to dominate the headlines."
I bet Cam is crapping himself at facing 'an expense saint', who leads a party of troughers and has five former comrades who gone done bird for fiddling. Go on expenses Ed, bury yourself.
If Miliband plays his cards well at PMQ’s, he can certainly make life a little uncomfortable for Cameron. However, if he goes off on another of his shouty sanctimonious rants, Cameron will clobber him with five Labour MP Expense cheats jailed for fraud on his watch and gently remind the opposition leader of the present incumbent Hazel Blears, waving a cheque for £15,000 after she was caught out avoiding CGT - having flipped her secondary home status amongst her varied property portfolio.
As someone interested in facts, logic and all that Enlightenment rubbish the Maria Miller affair has been a painful episode in British public life.
The media have been very careful to report two facts:
1. That the independent commissioner's report concluded that Maria Miller should repay £45,000.
2. That the committee of MPs reduced this amount to £5,800.
Almost without exception they have omitted to report that this reduction was due to Maria Miller presenting further evidence and was a reduction agreed to by the independent commissioner - ie there was no sense in which the committee of MPs overruled the independent commissioner.
By omitting this key fact the media have created an entirely false impression of the facts of the case in the mind of the public. There is a reason that the oath one is asked to take in court is not only to tell the truth, but to tell the whole truth. A partial account of the truth can be as misleading as the most brazen lie.
Perhaps Maria Miller would have survived if she had been more contrite in her statement to Parliament, or if some other detail in the way this was handled had been different. Perhaps she did not deserve to remain in the Cabinet after being found guilty of incorrectly claiming her expenses. However, in my view it is the complete failure of journalistic ethics that is most worrying.
There can be no meaningful public debate if there is not accurate reporting of facts in the media. In the absence of meaningful public debate voting becomes pointless, because it is conducted on the basis of falsehoods and deception.
A really excellent post, Oblitus.
The press have it within their power to unleash the forces of mob justice on politicians they either believe are miscreant, or, whom they want to paint as such for undisclosed reasons.
They do not have the same power with regard to the general public who have been subjected to a judicial process with its requirements for determination based on truthful evidence.
It is difficult to see how the power of the press can be constrained to act reasonably without tipping the balance in favour of political power. So the problem is likely to remain and will persist as a sore on our society.
Maybe this is an area Lord Leveson can address in an extended terms of reference when the second part of his inquiry resumes.
As someone interested in facts, logic and all that Enlightenment rubbish the Maria Miller affair has been a painful episode in British public life.
The media have been very careful to report two facts:
1. That the independent commissioner's report concluded that Maria Miller should repay £45,000.
2. That the committee of MPs reduced this amount to £5,800.
Almost without exception they have omitted to report that this reduction was due to Maria Miller presenting further evidence and was a reduction agreed to by the independent commissioner - ie there was no sense in which the committee of MPs overruled the independent commissioner.
By omitting this key fact the media have created an entirely false impression of the facts of the case in the mind of the public. There is a reason that the oath one is asked to take in court is not only to tell the truth, but to tell the whole truth. A partial account of the truth can be as misleading as the most brazen lie.
Perhaps Maria Miller would have survived if she had been more contrite in her statement to Parliament, or if some other detail in the way this was handled had been different. Perhaps she did not deserve to remain in the Cabinet after being found guilty of incorrectly claiming her expenses. However, in my view it is the complete failure of journalistic ethics that is most worrying.
There can be no meaningful public debate if there is not accurate reporting of facts in the media. In the absence of meaningful public debate voting becomes pointless, because it is conducted on the basis of falsehoods and deception.
+1 Excellent post.
As I said earlier, who'd want the job after Miller? The press will go after whoever gets it.
Has Maria Miller resigned? Yippee! I'm 200 quid richer. Must log in to William Hill...
Nicely done. Of course it was all the meeja's fault in the end. Nothing to do with the behaviour of Miller herself obviously or Cammie's inept dithering. Which is why every unflattering story involving MPs flagged up by the press results in a resignation.
As someone interested in facts, logic and all that Enlightenment rubbish the Maria Miller affair has been a painful episode in British public life.
The media have been very careful to report two facts:
1. That the independent commissioner's report concluded that Maria Miller should repay £45,000.
2. That the committee of MPs reduced this amount to £5,800.
Almost without exception they have omitted to report that this reduction was due to Maria Miller presenting further evidence and was a reduction agreed to by the independent commissioner - ie there was no sense in which the committee of MPs overruled the independent commissioner.
By omitting this key fact the media have created an entirely false impression of the facts of the case in the mind of the public. There is a reason that the oath one is asked to take in court is not only to tell the truth, but to tell the whole truth. A partial account of the truth can be as misleading as the most brazen lie.
Perhaps Maria Miller would have survived if she had been more contrite in her statement to Parliament, or if some other detail in the way this was handled had been different. Perhaps she did not deserve to remain in the Cabinet after being found guilty of incorrectly claiming her expenses. However, in my view it is the complete failure of journalistic ethics that is most worrying.
There can be no meaningful public debate if there is not accurate reporting of facts in the media. In the absence of meaningful public debate voting becomes pointless, because it is conducted on the basis of falsehoods and deception.
+1 Excellent post.
As I said earlier, who'd want the job after Miller? The press will go after whoever gets it.
My position is this: I want Miller's resignation but hope she stays.
Has Maria Miller resigned? Yippee! I'm 200 quid richer. Must log in to William Hill...
Nicely done. Of course it was all the meeja's fault in the end. Nothing to do with the behaviour of Miller herself obviously or Cammie's inept dithering. Which is why every unflattering story involving MPs flagged up by the press results in a resignation.
Has Maria Miller resigned? Yippee! I'm 200 quid richer. Must log in to William Hill...
Nicely done. Of course it was all the meeja's fault in the end. Nothing to do with the behaviour of Miller herself obviously or Cammie's inept dithering. Which is why every unflattering story involving MPs flagged up by the press results in a resignation.
"The vacuum of ideas has woken many Conservatives to the fact that the leadership of the party had not earned our vote. The party seems more in tune with the politics of Peter Tatchell than Margaret Thatcher. Indeed the political leaders of the three main parties seem almost completely interchangeable in language, attitude and policies.
To paraphrase Orwell's Animal Farm: "From the outside when you look from Conservative to Liberal and from Liberal to Labour and from Labour to Conservative it is almost impossible to say which is which."
I bet Cam is crapping himself at facing 'an expense saint', who leads a party of troughers and has five former comrades who gone done bird for fiddling. Go on expenses Ed, bury yourself.
If Miliband plays his cards well at PMQ’s, he can certainly make life a little uncomfortable for Cameron. However, if he goes off on another of his shouty sanctimonious rants, Cameron will clobber him with five Labour MP Expense cheats jailed for fraud on his watch and gently remind the opposition leader of the present incumbent Hazel Blears, waving a cheque for £15,000 after she was caught out avoiding CGT - having flipped her secondary home status amongst her varied property portfolio.
Prime Ministers in glass houses might be ill-advised to take that line, although I doubt Ed Miliband will bring it up either since he doesn't need to. It is not Miliband or Labour that has been making the running on this. Miliband might be more likely to ask for the PM's assurance that the new Minister will be equally committed to gay marriage and whatever else might disappoint backwoodsmen.
Most of those softly sticking the knife in weren't Labour MPs but Tories
Yes - because the bulk of dispirited Tory MP's who until recently thought the next election was lost now think after the Budget and the economic stats that the next election is far from lost.
That is quite an interesting element of the Miller affair....
I think it would've been even worse if the Tories were in pre-budget, energy price induced despair mode, as they'd have seen it as taking them beyond the threshold of likely recovery, from an 8-9 Lab lead to a 11 or 12 point one.
Noticeable that most ire was directed at Miller, rather than Dave for his rather poorly worded 'leave it at that' and refusal to cut her adrift.
As someone interested in facts, logic and all that Enlightenment rubbish the Maria Miller affair has been a painful episode in British public life.
The media have been very careful to report two facts:
1. That the independent commissioner's report concluded that Maria Miller should repay £45,000.
2. That the committee of MPs reduced this amount to £5,800.
Almost without exception they have omitted to report that this reduction was due to Maria Miller presenting further evidence and was a reduction agreed to by the independent commissioner - ie there was no sense in which the committee of MPs overruled the independent commissioner.
By omitting this key fact the media have created an entirely false impression of the facts of the case in the mind of the public. There is a reason that the oath one is asked to take in court is not only to tell the truth, but to tell the whole truth. A partial account of the truth can be as misleading as the most brazen lie.
Perhaps Maria Miller would have survived if she had been more contrite in her statement to Parliament, or if some other detail in the way this was handled had been different. Perhaps she did not deserve to remain in the Cabinet after being found guilty of incorrectly claiming her expenses. However, in my view it is the complete failure of journalistic ethics that is most worrying.
There can be no meaningful public debate if there is not accurate reporting of facts in the media. In the absence of meaningful public debate voting becomes pointless, because it is conducted on the basis of falsehoods and deception.
+1 Excellent post.
As I said earlier, who'd want the job after Miller? The press will go after whoever gets it.
This episode has focussed attention on several important aspects of our governance. But no fair person would want to see somebody wrongly pilloried for anything.
Not being widely read on this, I wonder if there is (are) any respected institution(s)---sorry to be so restrictive!---that has (have) publicly stated all the facts in Miller's case.
I bet Cam is crapping himself at facing 'an expense saint', who leads a party of troughers and has five former comrades who gone done bird for fiddling. Go on expenses Ed, bury yourself.
If Miliband plays his cards well at PMQ’s, he can certainly make life a little uncomfortable for Cameron. However, if he goes off on another of his shouty sanctimonious rants, Cameron will clobber him with five Labour MP Expense cheats jailed for fraud on his watch and gently remind the opposition leader of the present incumbent Hazel Blears, waving a cheque for £15,000 after she was caught out avoiding CGT - having flipped her secondary home status amongst her varied property portfolio.
Hazel Blears actually did not do anything which would have resulted in CGT. Even the IR clarified that. She volunteered the sum because it was "percieved" [ quite correctly in my opinion ] that she had made capital gains as the general public would understand it.
Maybe this is an area Lord Leveson can address in an extended terms of reference when the second part of his inquiry resumes.
It almost certainly won't resume now. Shame I can't tell you why.
Pork
I know The Hon. Mr Justice Mostyn, a well known High Court Judge, kept pigs and, on losing a case, named a litter of seven after the trial judge, Mr. Justice Munby. The little piglets were named: "James, Munby, Self-regarding, Pompous, Publicity, Seeking and Pillock".
Now I hadn't realised that pig-rearing had found it way up to the Presidency of the Queen's Bench Division.
I await further and better particulars from LIAMT.
As someone interested in facts, logic and all that Enlightenment rubbish the Maria Miller affair has been a painful episode in British public life.
The media have been very careful to report two facts:
1. That the independent commissioner's report concluded that Maria Miller should repay £45,000.
2. That the committee of MPs reduced this amount to £5,800.
Almost without exception they have omitted to report that this reduction was due to Maria Miller presenting further evidence and was a reduction agreed to by the independent commissioner - ie there was no sense in which the committee of MPs overruled the independent commissioner.
By omitting this key fact the media have created an entirely false impression of the facts of the case in the mind of the public. There is a reason that the oath one is asked to take in court is not only to tell the truth, but to tell the whole truth. A partial account of the truth can be as misleading as the most brazen lie.
Perhaps Maria Miller would have survived if she had been more contrite in her statement to Parliament, or if some other detail in the way this was handled had been different. Perhaps she did not deserve to remain in the Cabinet after being found guilty of incorrectly claiming her expenses. However, in my view it is the complete failure of journalistic ethics that is most worrying.
There can be no meaningful public debate if there is not accurate reporting of facts in the media. In the absence of meaningful public debate voting becomes pointless, because it is conducted on the basis of falsehoods and deception.
+1 Excellent post.
As I said earlier, who'd want the job after Miller? The press will go after whoever gets it.
My position is this: I want Miller's resignation but hope she stays.
"The vacuum of ideas has woken many Conservatives to the fact that the leadership of the party had not earned our vote. The party seems more in tune with the politics of Peter Tatchell than Margaret Thatcher. Indeed the political leaders of the three main parties seem almost completely interchangeable in language, attitude and policies.
To paraphrase Orwell's Animal Farm: "From the outside when you look from Conservative to Liberal and from Liberal to Labour and from Labour to Conservative it is almost impossible to say which is which."
Maybe this is an area Lord Leveson can address in an extended terms of reference when the second part of his inquiry resumes.
It almost certainly won't resume now. Shame I can't tell you why.
I await further and better particulars from LIAMT.
AVery
You're still waiting for Lansley to be PM. Best not overexert yourself after your comedy spinning today. Gratifyingly bumptious and out of touch though it clearly is.
I bet Cam is crapping himself at facing 'an expense saint', who leads a party of troughers and has five former comrades who gone done bird for fiddling. Go on expenses Ed, bury yourself.
If Miliband plays his cards well at PMQ’s, he can certainly make life a little uncomfortable for Cameron. However, if he goes off on another of his shouty sanctimonious rants, Cameron will clobber him with five Labour MP Expense cheats jailed for fraud on his watch and gently remind the opposition leader of the present incumbent Hazel Blears, waving a cheque for £15,000 after she was caught out avoiding CGT - having flipped her secondary home status amongst her varied property portfolio.
Hazel Blears actually did not do anything which would have resulted in CGT. Even the IR clarified that. She volunteered the sum because it was "percieved" [ quite correctly in my opinion ] that she had made capital gains as the general public would understand it.
Hazel Blears was a perfect demonstration of why it is a bad idea to hurl yourself into the path of an oncoming train. If she'd done nothing, she'd still be on the Labour front bench today.
Comments
Besides, this is the first time I've even heard this criticism. By far the dominant problem that people seem to have is that Ed didn't just say "well, I'm the youngest so I'll stand aside for my elders". It's absurd and unmeritocratic.
Nick Robinson on the Today programme said he'd been told that there would not for the moment be a general reshuffle, just a single promotion to fill the position made vacant by the witch-burning. If true, that strikes me as a mistake; I'd have thought it was an opportunity to seize the initiative and move decisively on to new ground with a refreshed team. It's not as though the vacancy has arisen without warning; if he wished, Cameron could easily have worked out contingency plans for a reshuffle over the last few days.
2) The land-grab planning rule, again for the reasons given on here passim.
Will that do for starters? It's hard to add any more as they don't really seem to have many firm policies.
As I noted at the start, David Cameron needs something to get through Prime Minister's Questions. Attack is the best form of defence, and impugning your opposite number is as good a way to go as any, especially if it involves the deployment of a well-known fact.
By the way, if you lecture other posters, as you did yesterday, about aggressive posting, you have to hold yourself to the same standards. You likened me to a BNP supporter with no cause and never apologised.
Was it a witch hunt? "I wouldn't criticise the press. I wouldn't go there," says Michael Gove #r4today
That should delight some of the most obsequious Cameroons.
If the press pursued a defendant acquitted by a criminal court with the same venom they spit at Cabinet Ministers the politicians would soon curtail media power.
- Why did she need to pay thousands of pounds if she'd not done anything wrong?
- Why did a woman who was on the ball enough to claim 99.9% of the limit unable to find any of her records?
- How come she couldn't track down not just one, but four au pairs to back up her claim she lived in her primary residence most of the time?
- Why was she ordered to apologise to parliament if she hadn't behaved badly in the investigation?
- How appropriate is it for her office to raise her interaction with a journalist's boss over her role in regulating the press?
There's a catalog of poor behaviour here that's pretty clear to anyone that's interested in the facts and not a die-hard Cameroon loyalist.
For my money, the only person to emerge with ant credit from the whole Miller saga is TSE. I hope he had enough on at 14/1 to afford some new shoes with which to dazzle us at the PB bash in May.
LOL
This is ppolitics. She could have survived the expenses report. She couldn't survive her contemptuous "apology". A sensible chap like you can see this surely?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-26937538#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
"The cost of the opening and closing ceremonies at this year's Commonwealth Games has risen by almost half.
Organisers Glasgow 2014 confirmed that the combined cost of both events was now £20,850,000 - up £6,850,000 or 49% on the 2012 estimate of £14m."
Now some might wonder why have the opening and closing ceremonies at two different venues ? Some might wonder why the venue for the opening ceremony isn't hosting any events ? Some might wonder if the number of season ticket holders for the venue of the opening ceremony who are also councillors is a factor - to those people I say - what a cynical bunch.
Adrian Short @adrianshort 1h
Very clear from Maria Miller's resignation letter & Cameron's reply that neither of them think she's done any wrong: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/09/maria-miller-resignation-letter-prime-minister-david-cameron …
I said it wouldn't go unnoticed. I reckon Milliband can use that at PMQs.
This is getting stupid. It's a feeding frenzy of semi-intelligent sharks after a witch-hunt (presumably involving a ducking-stool).
Well Morris describes himself as a rightwinger and he supports a Tory government. It's hardly a slur.
As I said earlier, I don't dispute Maria Miller's "innocence" in parliamentary terms but that isn't and never has been the point. To many among the public, her behaviour resonates with the worst examples of the expenses scandal not so much for the sums involved but for her seeming unrepentance and obfuscation.
As others have said, had she made proper contrition in the HoC last week and perhaps resigned, it would have been argued with justification that while she had fallen short of the standards of high office, she had salvaged considerable dignity from events.
The impression of a Minister trying to squirm and evade and cling onto her job is about as bad as it gets in political terms - if nothing else, the Government, which needs all the time and positive Press it can get, has lost valuable days projecting its own positive agenda because of this.
You, sir, are a silly sausage.
I'm sure Wee Dougie Alexander will manage to close it, all by himself, since there won't be anyone left in the office to help him.
That said, Miller only had to stand down. Labour expense cheats are the real McCoy - they get sent down.
Retweeted 296 times
Krishnan Guru-Murthy @krishgm 2h
also worth noting there is no acknowledgement in either of the letters from her or David Cameron that Maria Miller had done anything wrong
Iain Dale @IainDale 2h
David Cameron hopes Maria Miller will return to the front bench "in due course". Is he completely barking mad? #toxicwiththevoters @LBC
It's reassuring to see Cammie back to his stunning PR 'best' as his hilarious Asda photoshoot a few days ago was a clear sign that he'd got his PR comedy mojo back. It's amazing that his inept spinners can still be so massively out of touch.
The media have been very careful to report two facts:
1. That the independent commissioner's report concluded that Maria Miller should repay £45,000.
2. That the committee of MPs reduced this amount to £5,800.
Almost without exception they have omitted to report that this reduction was due to Maria Miller presenting further evidence and was a reduction agreed to by the independent commissioner - ie there was no sense in which the committee of MPs overruled the independent commissioner.
By omitting this key fact the media have created an entirely false impression of the facts of the case in the mind of the public. There is a reason that the oath one is asked to take in court is not only to tell the truth, but to tell the whole truth. A partial account of the truth can be as misleading as the most brazen lie.
Perhaps Maria Miller would have survived if she had been more contrite in her statement to Parliament, or if some other detail in the way this was handled had been different. Perhaps she did not deserve to remain in the Cabinet after being found guilty of incorrectly claiming her expenses. However, in my view it is the complete failure of journalistic ethics that is most worrying.
There can be no meaningful public debate if there is not accurate reporting of facts in the media. In the absence of meaningful public debate voting becomes pointless, because it is conducted on the basis of falsehoods and deception.
- Because she had, as she herself discovered, inadvertently failed to adjust her claim when interest rates fell,. She corrected this mistake as soon as she discovered it, and immediately paid back the inadvertent over-claim. Both the standards commissioner and the Commitee accepted that this was an honest mistake. I imagine you are not suggesting that she, alone of all MPs in a similar position, should have resigned over that? If so, why her particularly?
- Why should she keep irrelevant records of over ten years ago, before she was an MP? Oh, and you've managed smear her for claiming '99.9%' of the entitlement. (Did you invent this figure?). That was the system at the time: MPs were asked to produce claims up to but not exceeding the maximum.
- That is a perfect example of a nasty witch-hunting smear. You set some impossible and irrelevant test, and then castigate her for not carrying it out. The standards commissioner (whose judgement you are so keen to accept when it suits your prejudice) rejected the complain that there was anything wrong in her designation of principal residence, and that was fully accepted by the committee.
- She did behave badly during the investigation, as I have repeatedly agreed, and as is generally accepted. That was why the Committee, very fairly, criticised her and told her to apologise to the House, which she did. If your argument were that, on this ground alone, she should have gone further and resigned, you'd have an arguable case.
- It was not her, but her aide, who raised the question of the Telegraph journalist doorstepping her elderly and sick parents - exactly the kind of behaviour Leveson was about. I accept that this might have been unwise.
Finally - yes, there is some poor behaviour. If the criticism had been limited to the poor behaviour, one could have an honest and fact-based discussion about whether it was a resigning matter.
I must say, I do find it ironic, that you - someone who claims to be really concerned about civil liberties - seem to completely lose all sense of traditional English fairness and objectivity when it comes to thhis case.
Most of those softly sticking the knife in weren't Labour MPs but Tories - those very annoyed that her behaviour could cost them votes, rather than opposition MPs desperate for a scalp. They may sympathise with some of the intricacies of the case, but that someone shown to have such poor political judgement shouldn't have the privilege of being a leading representative of their party.
I have already commented on her apology. It was not it's length that offended: it was her tone.
On whether a fully contrite apology would have avoided the witch hunt, I fear this is counterfactual speculation.
Possibly Maria's best survival tactics would have been to announce that she had offered her resignation to the PM and for Cameron later to say it had not been accepted. But this also is speculation.
Disregard of due process and contraverting the authority of proper determination is no cause for celebration, regardless of "politics", whatever their colour.
That is quite an interesting element of the Miller affair....
Liam Fox was obviously comedy Gold but I certainly didn't predicate anything on the incompetent fop promising his return.
You do seem a bit rattled Harold, why not calm down dear?
LOL
'Incompetent fops'
When is Salmoan going to come clean about his Peninsula hotel expenses.
What's he got to hide?
Alex von Tunzelmann @alexvtunzelmann 2h
Miller's resignation letter is exercise in self-pity & self-adulation. Cameron's oleaginous reply promises her job back. God, these people.
ARTIST TAXI DRIVER @chunkymark 2h
Cameron,been getting us to pay interest on a £350K mortgage when he has a mortgage-free home in Kensington rented out at massive profit
Is it some sort of insult?!
I'm not a Tory, I'm rather better than that. I'd hope you see yourself as rather more than a dull red flag waver.
Go on expenses Ed, bury yourself.
Quite right about Harman. Fair play to you.
I feel sorry for Miller - trial by mob.
PM says current rules on parliamentary standards "may not be working". REALLY? YOU THINK? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/07/maria-miller-cameron-open-reforming-mps-police-themselves …
"Below is the account I wrote some years ago about David Cameron's extraordinary escape from scrutiny over his very large expenses claims. The strange unwillingness of the media to follow this story is paralleled today by their equal unwillingness to examine Michael Gove's decision to spurn Burlington Danes Academy, a school he has personally loaded with extravagant praise, which is a short walk from his London home, and instead send his daughter to an elite school some miles from his home. Labour politicians who did this were (rightly) subjected to a good deal of scrutiny. Mr Gove's decision, by contrast, has been portrayed as a praiseworthy egalitarian move.I mention this to point out that a story needs more than just interesting, even surprising facts to dominate the headlines."
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/04/why-david-cameron-isnt-being-hard-on-maria-miller.html
The press have it within their power to unleash the forces of mob justice on politicians they either believe are miscreant, or, whom they want to paint as such for undisclosed reasons.
They do not have the same power with regard to the general public who have been subjected to a judicial process with its requirements for determination based on truthful evidence.
It is difficult to see how the power of the press can be constrained to act reasonably without tipping the balance in favour of political power. So the problem is likely to remain and will persist as a sore on our society.
Maybe this is an area Lord Leveson can address in an extended terms of reference when the second part of his inquiry resumes.
As I said earlier, who'd want the job after Miller? The press will go after whoever gets it.
Of course it was all the meeja's fault in the end. Nothing to do with the behaviour of Miller herself obviously or Cammie's inept dithering. Which is why every unflattering story involving MPs flagged up by the press results in a resignation.
LOL
Still money is money.
Chortles.
*chortle*
"The vacuum of ideas has woken many Conservatives to the fact that the leadership of the party had not earned our vote. The party seems more in tune with the politics of Peter Tatchell than Margaret Thatcher. Indeed the political leaders of the three main parties seem almost completely interchangeable in language, attitude and policies.
To paraphrase Orwell's Animal Farm: "From the outside when you look from Conservative to Liberal and from Liberal to Labour and from Labour to Conservative it is almost impossible to say which is which."
Read more: http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/politician-prepared-lead-ndash-refreshing/story-20926975-detail/story.html#comments#ixzz2yNgqWauC
Still, there are far bigger sharks than this story lurking under the waves.
*Guffaws*
Noticeable that most ire was directed at Miller, rather than Dave for his rather poorly worded 'leave it at that' and refusal to cut her adrift.
Not being widely read on this, I wonder if there is (are) any respected institution(s)---sorry to be so restrictive!---that has (have) publicly stated all the facts in Miller's case.
Retweeted 41 times
Cllr Stephen West @cllrstephenwest 10h
Various Conservative ex-colleagues have told me tonight that Maria Miller is going to resign from her Cabinet post tomorrow. More to follow.
Seems he was far more in touch than the Cameroons still are on here, though obviously that's not exactly hard.
Populus "Most Noticed News" for last week
4th Place for the debate no one was watching
Laurence Stellings @LaurenceThinks 35m
@drjennings @GoodwinMJ Not quite name recognition, but in last week's Populus most noticed news, didn't make top 10 pic.twitter.com/RkjbUzVMTY
I know The Hon. Mr Justice Mostyn, a well known High Court Judge, kept pigs and, on losing a case, named a litter of seven after the trial judge, Mr. Justice Munby. The little piglets were named: "James, Munby, Self-regarding, Pompous, Publicity, Seeking and Pillock".
Now I hadn't realised that pig-rearing had found it way up to the Presidency of the Queen's Bench Division.
I await further and better particulars from LIAMT.
2) I'm not sure moving to UKIP is a positive move if you want to overcome a paucity of ideas.
Do you know who gets his former post of Financial Secretary to the Treasury?
You're still waiting for Lansley to be PM. Best not overexert yourself after your comedy spinning today. Gratifyingly bumptious and out of touch though it clearly is.
If that's not, ya know, sexist n ting
David Cameron tweets that Sajid Javid has been appointed new Sec of State for Culture, Media and Sport. #c4news
Tim Wigmore @timwig 5m
Sajid Javid, arch Osbornite, gets the gig. Expect lots of Labour questions about women problem again today
An arch master strategist. What could possibly go wrong?
twitter.com/oflynndirector/status/453819651215355904
2013 local election results, Basingstoke and Deane
http://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/browse/council-and-democracy/councillors-democracy-and-elections/elections/results/2013/default.htm