Everything in a democracy as by definition the PM is supposed to be the leader of the party which attracts the most support from the voters. On your definition you may as well dispense with democracy and just appoint some technocrat, impossible if the government is to secure the long-term consent of the governed.
No, that is not my definition at all. This all came from a discussion of someone more junior than in the Great Offices taking over, and the scenario is not during an election. My point was just because it is common, and usually desirable, that the person taking over is experienced in a myriad of ways and political skills, does not mean that someone who was less experienced might not be able to do the job.
I'm not saying do away with democracy, that's frankly a very silly interpretation. Democracy is not perfect, as we all know, but it's the best option we have, and that when we cast our vote we cannot know for certain if that great campaigner is going to be the best actual PM or not does not mean I think the vote is pointless.
After all, PMs and leaders lacking in the charisma of their rivals make the same argument at every election cycle - my opponent may be a better speaker/campaigner than me, but I am the better leader/have the best ideas. They are saying that campaigning skills are not the same as leading skills; is that them saying we should dispense with democracy?
If it is purely a matter of prior experience that is important, then I could typify your argument as saying we should never change government at all, but that too would be silly.
Everything in a democracy as by definition the PM is supposed to be the leader of the party which attracts the most support from the voters. On your definition you may as well dispense with democracy and just appoint some technocrat, impossible if the government is to secure the long-term consent of the governed.
No, that is not my definition at all. This all came from a discussion of someone more junior than in the Great Offices taking over, and the scenario is not during an election. My point was just because it is common, and usually desirable, that the person taking over is experienced in a myriad of ways and political skills, does not mean that someone who was less experienced might not be able to do the job.
I'm not saying do away with democracy, that's frankly a very silly interpretation. Democracy is not perfect, as we all know, but it's the best option we have, and that when we cast our vote we cannot know for certain if that great campaigner is going to be the best actual PM or not does not mean I think the vote is pointless.
After all, PMs and leaders lacking in the charisma of their rivals make the same argument at every election cycle - my opponent may be a better speaker/campaigner than me, but I am the better leader/have the best ideas. They are saying that campaigning skills are not the same as leading skills; is that them saying we should dispense with democracy?
Nobody can take over the leadership of the country without having held down the running of a major department or a major political party or a major business etc it is too big a risk, especially with the huge challenges facing Brexit Britain.
Is touching someone's knee, while not proper behaviour, really being a 'sex pest'? It will be important in the hysteria to find serial harrassers/abusers and serious incidents, and even the minor stuff will demand apology, but not every one of those named will deserve the label of sex pest. It would risk trivializing those who suffer at the hands of the nastiest sort.
We are in danger of like the expenses scandal equates all offensives as the same when far from that i.e. claiming an expensive tv vs making up £10ks of false expenses for a fake office or paying in cash for a flat owned by your mate.
Everything in a democracy as by definition the PM is supposed to be the leader of the party which attracts the most support from the voters. On your definition you may as well dispense with democracy and just appoint some technocrat, impossible if the government is to secure the long-term consent of the governed.
No, tha
Nobody can take over the leadership of the country without having held down the running of a major department or a major political party or a major business etc it is too big a risk, especially with the huge challenges facing Brexit Britain.
Says you. Someone else would say nobody can take over not having run a major department and not include the other two options you provide, they would say it is too big a risk. Indeed, Gordon Brown made just such an argument in 2010, that it was not the time for change given the challenges. He didn't think running a major political party was by itself sufficient(or so he was claiming at any rate), but you (and I) do. And it wasn't just about ideology of his opponents, the pitch was specifically about experience as well, that it was not a time for novices.
Then we get into how big a department is big enough. Health is not one of the Great Offices of State but it a hugely complicated area of massive importance and enormous spending, that's probably important enough. Is Transport a big enough department? The Home Office no longer has responsibility for Justice, is it really still important enough?
It's not clear cut even with the cut offs you suggest, so while I think it improbablesomeone without such experience would be suitable, I'm not ruling it as impossible either. The young chap in Austria probably had people say he was too young for the senior positions he held previously, but apparently it worked out just fine.
Well that is some statement and Fallon should survive his cabinet role.
I hope that letter is widely used in the media tomorrow
Without that statement, and being the first name out, and I'd have thought he'd resign, as the pressure to make an example even though his offence is not among the more serious and lurid rumours out there, of the first to be named would be quite strong.
Well that is some statement and Fallon should survive his cabinet role.
I hope that letter is widely used in the media tomorrow
Without that statement, and being the first name out, and I'd have thought he'd resign, as the pressure to make an example even though his offence is not among the more serious and lurid rumours out there, of the first to be named would be quite strong.
You'd hope that No 10 would use this as a convenient excuse for a reshuffle. Maybe they are busy working out who on the back benches isn't a sex pest?
Well that is some statement and Fallon should survive his cabinet role.
I hope that letter is widely used in the media tomorrow
Without that statement, and being the first name out, and I'd have thought he'd resign, as the pressure to make an example even though his offence is not among the more serious and lurid rumours out there, of the first to be named would be quite strong.
I have said all along a sense of perspective is needed
Everything in a democracy as by definition the PM is supposed to be the leader of the party which attracts the most support from the voters. On your definition you may as well dispense with democracy and just appoint some technocrat, impossible if the government is to secure the long-term consent of the governed.
No, tha
Nobody can take over the leadership of the country without having held down the running of a major department or a major political party or a major business etc it is too big a risk, especially with the huge challenges facing Brexit Britain.
Says you. Someone else would say nobody can take over not having run a major department and not include the other two options you provide, they would say it is too big a risk. Indeed, Gordon Brown made just such an argument in 2010, that it was not the time for change given the challenges. He didn't think running a major political party was by itself sufficient(or so he was claiming at any rate), but you (and I) do. And it wasn't just about ideology of his opponents, the pitch was specifically about experience as well, that it was not a time for novices.
Then we get into how big a department is big enough. Health is not one of the Great Offices of State but it a hugely complicated area of massive importance and enormous spending, that's probably important enough. Is Transport a big enough department? The Home Office no longer has responsibility for Justice, is it really still important enough?
It's not clear cut even with the cut offs you suggest, so while I think it improbablesomeone without such experience would be suitable, I'm not ruling it as impossible either. The young chap in Austria probably had people say he was too young for the senior positions he held previously, but apparently it worked out just fine.
You do not become headmaster without being a deputy first or ceo without being a senior board member or a Field Marshall without being a general so I don't see why politics is any different? Cameron of course was Tory leader and Leader of the Opposition for 5 years before he became PM and had previously been Shadow Education Secretary.
It is possible that the Health Secretary could have an outside chance at doing the job but there is no young person in that role either at the moment, Hunt is 50.
Even Kurz 'the young chap in Austria' was Austrian Foreign Minister before he won their general election and became PM, he did not come completely from nowhere.
Well that is some statement and Fallon should survive his cabinet role.
I hope that letter is widely used in the media tomorrow
Without that statement, and being the first name out, and I'd have thought he'd resign, as the pressure to make an example even though his offence is not among the more serious and lurid rumours out there, of the first to be named would be quite strong.
You'd hope that No 10 would use this as a convenient excuse for a reshuffle. Maybe they are busy working out who on the back benches isn't a sex pest?
Only once you know who is involved... don't want to reappoint a sex pest
Well that is some statement and Fallon should survive his cabinet role.
I hope that letter is widely used in the media tomorrow
Without that statement, and being the first name out, and I'd have thought he'd resign, as the pressure to make an example even though his offence is not among the more serious and lurid rumours out there, of the first to be named would be quite strong.
You'd hope that No 10 would use this as a convenient excuse for a reshuffle. Maybe they are busy working out who on the back benches isn't a sex pest?
But you're probably at the whim of their honesty in that case, since investigations and rumours will only have turned up so much. And unless a Cabinet Minister has done worse than Fallon, she can't use this as excuse for reshuffle without moving him, and it would have to be out of the Cabinet entirely as if his apology (and Julia's reaction) is not enough, then why is it ok that he be Secretary of Transport but not Minister of Defence?
Well that is some statement and Fallon should survive his cabinet role.
I hope that letter is widely used in the media tomorrow
Without that statement, and being the first name out, and I'd have thought he'd resign, as the pressure to make an example even though his offence is not among the more serious and lurid rumours out there, of the first to be named would be quite strong.
I have said all along a sense of perspective is needed
Human interactions have and always been complicated things. Signals are misread, actions are later regretted, mistakes are made. That doesn't automatically mean there are victims and perpetrators - they might just be adults who didn't get things right.
Well that is some statement and Fallon should survive his cabinet role.
I hope that letter is widely used in the media tomorrow
Without that statement, and being the first name out, and I'd have thought he'd resign, as the pressure to make an example even though his offence is not among the more serious and lurid rumours out there, of the first to be named would be quite strong.
I have said all along a sense of perspective is needed
Human interactions have and always been complicated things. Signals are misread, actions are later regretted, mistakes are made. That doesn't automatically mean there are victims and perpetrators - they might just be adults who didn't get things right.
Perspective and context are everything.
We all know people who can't take "no" for an answer. They are far worse than people who *need* no for an answer.
If the bar for resignation is set at hand on a knee there are going to be nobody left in the HoC.
If this is the worst we get - from any party - then the house is far cleaner than might have been feared. It's certainly nowhere close to the SWP thing from a couple of years ago.
Good for her. One of the few pieces of grown-up thinking I have seen today. She is absolutely right.
She's tweeted it, so it's definitely her. Can you believe it, JHB the voice of reason...
Her letter is a big moment in this issue.
It will be dismissed by the usual suspects from the Outrage Brigade.
If this Fallon incident is all there is then the whole 'issue' is a non-issue. But look again at the redacted Tory spreadsheet. That implies there's a whole lot more serious allegations to come.
Even Kurz 'the young chap in Austria' was Austrian Foreign Minister before he won their general election and became PM, he did not come completely from nowhere.
Yes I know, that was my point! He was very young when appointed Foreign Minister, and if he held posts before that even younger, and many many people would have said he was too young for that, that he lacked experience, and he proved them wrong. To the point he did have clear experience for the role of PM, yes, but he was so so young to hold the previous roles too that he clearly will have faced the 'lacks experience' argument before. By your logic he should never have gotten the chance, because he was made FM with so little experience. Why did he not need experience for that role, he was 27 and had been an MP for a few months?
But we are going in circles, so I will reiterate for a final time and call it quits - the point is not that experience is not an important criteria to have in most instances, but what you are asserting as the only kind of relevant experience is merely your opinion, and also somewhat arbitrary. We choose to elect people with no government experience to government, that is democracy and we'd never switch governments otherwise, but in this country there is no experience to truly prepare you. A US Governor will perhaps have some insight into the role of US President, but a LOTO has no real insight into the role of PM. They cannot. We decide that the risk they are an empty campaigner with no skill at administration is worth it, because that's the price of democracy, but it is not a preparation for leading the government in my opinion. Happily, most turn out to be no more than a little crappy, the skills they have sufficient. But we didn't have proof, and it is wrong in my view to rule out someone else entirely because they don't happen to occupy one of say 4 posts in government. A LOTO might have come from the backbenches and then become PM in the course of a year or two, so theoretically hundreds have the opportunity, but a few dozen more minor ministers must be ruled out entirely? Unfair.
Well that is some statement and Fallon should survive his cabinet role.
I hope that letter is widely used in the media tomorrow
Without that statement, and being the first name out, and I'd have thought he'd resign, as the pressure to make an example even though his offence is not among the more serious and lurid rumours out there, of the first to be named would be quite strong.
You'd hope that No 10 would use this as a convenient excuse for a reshuffle. Maybe they are busy working out who on the back benches isn't a sex pest?
Only once you know who is involved... don't want to reappoint a sex pest
Fallon is safe, and the issue will (rightly) die if that is all there is.
I very much doubt that that is all there is though.
Good for her. One of the few pieces of grown-up thinking I have seen today. She is absolutely right.
She's tweeted it, so it's definitely her. Can you believe it, JHB the voice of reason...
Her letter is a big moment in this issue.
It will be dismissed by the usual suspects from the Outrage Brigade.
If this Fallon incident is all there is then the whole 'issue' is a non-issue. But look again at the redacted Tory spreadsheet. That implies there's a whole lot more serious allegations to come.
So let me get this straight, White House has some problems, leaders of Catalonian region flee to Belgium and Fallon is the main topic?
All politics is local I suppose.
What are the odds on any significant British figures getting indicted by Mueller?
NF?
UK associates of Farage are definite people of interest as links in the chain. Nigel's name is in documentation but whether a person of interest to US investigators, not yet clear.
Good for her. One of the few pieces of grown-up thinking I have seen today. She is absolutely right.
She's tweeted it, so it's definitely her. Can you believe it, JHB the voice of reason...
Her letter is a big moment in this issue.
It will be dismissed by the usual suspects from the Outrage Brigade.
If this Fallon incident is all there is then the whole 'issue' is a non-issue. But look again at the redacted Tory spreadsheet. That implies there's a whole lot more serious allegations to come.
There may be. But I am surprised that The Sun (which has close links to Guido) has chosen to make this the first allegation when even the 'victim' has made it so clear that she is no victim and that to consider her as such is to demean those who have really suffered.
The interesting thing on Fallon will be how hard other parties go after him - he's a big fish, and at the inappropriate knee touching level they have to know (or suspect) senior people on their own side will have done the same (which does not make it right), so how much is it worth going after him fully, or wait for more serious stuff, do it properly cross party?
Good for her. One of the few pieces of grown-up thinking I have seen today. She is absolutely right.
She's tweeted it, so it's definitely her. Can you believe it, JHB the voice of reason...
Her letter is a big moment in this issue.
It will be dismissed by the usual suspects from the Outrage Brigade.
If this Fallon incident is all there is then the whole 'issue' is a non-issue. But look again at the redacted Tory spreadsheet. That implies there's a whole lot more serious allegations to come.
The interesting thing on Fallon will be how hard other parties go after him - he's a big fish, and at the inappropriate knee touching level they have to know (or suspect) senior people on their own side will have done the same (which does not make it right), so how much is it worth going after him fully?
I think JHB's intervention makes it pretty difficult to paint Fallon as a menace to all women.
So unless more facts emerge, she has saved his career.
Good for her. One of the few pieces of grown-up thinking I have seen today. She is absolutely right.
She's tweeted it, so it's definitely her. Can you believe it, JHB the voice of reason...
Her letter is a big moment in this issue.
It will be dismissed by the usual suspects from the Outrage Brigade.
If this Fallon incident is all there is then the whole 'issue' is a non-issue. But look again at the redacted Tory spreadsheet. That implies there's a whole lot more serious allegations to come.
1) There was no power dynamic between Hartley Brewer and Michael Fallon so far as I am aware. He is a politician, she is a journo - not particularly a defence correspondent which would satisfy the point, albeit stretched. 2) They are both adults. 3) It was at a party conference dinner, that is outside work time and no doubt the booze was flowing. 4) Are we really going to go on a witch hunt for clumsy flirting ? Hartley-Brewer is obviously not phased by the incident and dealt with it there and then in a fitting manner.
The only person Fallon should be explaining this incident to is his wife !
Even Kurz 'the young chap in Austria' was Austrian Foreign Minister before he won their general election and became PM, he did not come completely from nowhere.
Yes I know, that was my point! He was very young when appointed Foreign Minister, and if he held posts before that even younger, and many many people would have said he was too young for that, that he lacked experience, and he proved them wrong. To the point he did have clear experience for the role of PM, yes, but he was so so young to hold the previous roles too that he clearly will have faced the 'lacks experience' argument before. By your logic he should never have gotten the chance, because he was made FM with so little experience. Why did he not need experience for that role, he was 27 and had been an MP for a few months?
But we are going in circles, so I will reiterate for a final time and call it quits - the point is not that experience is not an important criteria to have in most instances, but what you are asserting as the only kind of relevant experience is merely your opinion, and also somewhat arbitrary. We choose to elect people with no government experience to government, that is democracy and we'd never switch governments otherwise, but in this country there is no experience to truly prepare you. A US Governor will perhaps have some insight into the role of US President, but a LOTO has no real insight into the role of PM. They cannot. We decide that the risk they are an empty campaigner with no skill at administration is worth it, because that's the price of democracy, but it is not a preparation for leading the government in my opinion. Happily, most turn out to be no more than a little crappy, the skills they have sufficient. But we didn't have proof, and it is wrong in my view to rule out someone else entirely because they don't happen to occupy one of say 4 posts in government. A LOTO might have come from the backbenches and then become PM in the course of a year or two, so theoretically hundreds have the opportunity, but a few dozen more minor ministers must be ruled out entirely? Unfair.
No, I did not say that, what I said was he needed to hold down a major department of state before he got the top job in government, which he had done. Being LOTO effectively thrusts you into the public eye straight away and while you may not be running a department you are running a major political party, developing policies for it etc so in that sense it is a better preparation for being PM and a top political rule than being a backbencher or junior minister for paperclips.
Good for her. One of the few pieces of grown-up thinking I have seen today. She is absolutely right.
She's tweeted it, so it's definitely her. Can you believe it, JHB the voice of reason...
Her letter is a big moment in this issue.
It will be dismissed by the usual suspects from the Outrage Brigade.
If this Fallon incident is all there is then the whole 'issue' is a non-issue. But look again at the redacted Tory spreadsheet. That implies there's a whole lot more serious allegations to come.
Indeed - and the fully redacted stuff may be worse. The other point is that the way these stories work is like a dam breaking, one seemingly minor allegation can crack the dam and lead to more accusations pouring out - for the simple reason that once something's on the record and has either been admitted or at least not denied, then if that person is a serial offender (and no one's saying Fallon is, but others according to the spreadsheet are) then other alleged victims no longer fear going on the record with accusations as they can't be dismissed out of hand - and editors are much happier to publish. The balance of power shifts as bringing a libel case becomes much more awkward. Also, if one minister is put through the wringer for a relatively minor accusation the demands to out others who have allegedly done far worse will grow.
Stefan Molyneux? Really? This is PB. I expect to see Molyneux cited by Trump supporters on twitter/reddit or by those on the alt-right, by people who believe the big issues facing the West are Gamer-gate and ‘cultural Marxism.’
The interesting thing on Fallon will be how hard other parties go after him - he's a big fish, and at the inappropriate knee touching level they have to know (or suspect) senior people on their own side will have done the same (which does not make it right), so how much is it worth going after him fully?
I think JHB's intervention makes it pretty difficult to paint Fallon as a menace to all women.
So unless more facts emerge, she has saved his career.
Fallon has asked for seven other knees three shins and an alterior cruciate ligament into consideration.
Good for her. One of the few pieces of grown-up thinking I have seen today. She is absolutely right.
She's tweeted it, so it's definitely her. Can you believe it, JHB the voice of reason...
Her letter is a big moment in this issue.
It will be dismissed by the usual suspects from the Outrage Brigade.
If this Fallon incident is all there is then the whole 'issue' is a non-issue. But look again at the redacted Tory spreadsheet. That implies there's a whole lot more serious allegations to come.
Indeed - and the fully redacted stuff may be worse. The other point is that the way these stories work is like a dam breaking, one seemingly minor allegation can crack the dam and lead to more accusations pouring out - for the simple reason that once something's on the record and has either been admitted or at least not denied, then if that person is a serial offender (and no one's saying Fallon is, but others according to the spreadsheet are) then other alleged victims no longer fear going on the record with accusations as they can't be dismissed out of hand - and editors are much happier to publish. The balance of power shifts as bringing a libel case becomes much more awkward. Also, if one minister is put through the wringer for a relatively minor accusation the demands to out others who have allegedly done far worse will grow.
I didn’t see as many accusations of a ‘witch hunt’/criticism of the allegations when it was Jared O’Mara last week. As soon as it’s become about Tories, now it’s an overreaction.
Good for her. One of the few pieces of grown-up thinking I have seen today. She is absolutely right.
She's tweeted it, so it's definitely her. Can you believe it, JHB the voice of reason...
Her letter is a big moment in this issue.
It will be dismissed by the usual suspects from the Outrage Brigade.
I do not think you dismiss Julie Hartley Brewer to easily
They will try - and she will stand her ground (quite rightly)
Just because she is/was able to bat this away lightly doesn't mean others who suffer similar or worse are able to.
I am not saying that they will.
She very clearly believes that there was no harassment here and has stated it directly in order to ensure that those who have suffered harassment or assault are not dismissed.
Good for her. One of the few pieces of grown-up thinking I have seen today. She is absolutely right.
She's tweeted it, so it's definitely her. Can you believe it, JHB the voice of reason...
Her letter is a big moment in this issue.
It will be dismissed by the usual suspects from the Outrage Brigade.
If this Fallon incident is all there is then the whole 'issue' is a non-issue. But look again at the redacted Tory spreadsheet. That implies there's a whole lot more serious allegations to come.
I didn’t see as many accusations of a ‘witch hunt’/criticism of the allegations when it was Jared O’Mara last week. As soon as it’s become about Tories, now it’s an overreaction.
The Tories may have dug a bit of a hole for themselves there. They can hardly argue about overreactions when they were calling for a by-election over some, admittedly appalling (and I wouldn't have been too sad to see the back of him) words, and then call a political witch hunt on actual harassment, even if as in the Fallon case the victim has brushed it off.
There's also a bit of a class element to it - O'Mara behaved like a grotesque thug, and so was easy to dismiss as beyond the pale. Wandering hands at a posh function, well it's just high jinks or unfortunate behaviour - if we had to resign for that the House of Lords would be half empty.
Indeed - and theseemingly minor allegation can crack the dam and lead to more accusations pouring out - for the simple reason that once something's on the record and has either been admitted or at least not denied, then if that person is a serial offender (and no one's saying Fallon is, but others according to the spreadsheet are) then other alleged victims no longer fear going on the record with accusations as theywill grow.
I didn’t see as many accusations of a ‘witch hunt’/criticism of the allegations when it was Jared O’Mara last week. As soon as it’s become about Tories, now it’s an overreaction.
Well you should have read more closely, as plenty said while o’mara Seems to be an arse he did not seem to have done anything worthy of resignation and others went further and felt guido and others trawling through social media was wrong. The call for caution is entirely fair so victims of harassment and abuse do not get trivialised alongside those who merely encountered arseholes like o'mara or, should this be the end of his allegations, fallon like inappropriateness which needs apology but is not monstrous.
You’ve jumped the gun on the ‘oh, so it’s ok when Tories do it’ claims. Will there be some of that? It’s the internet of course, o’mara famously did the same in reverse, but there were plenty who were not so partisan.
Good for her. One of the few pieces of grown-up thinking I have seen today. She is absolutely right.
She's tweeted it, so it's definitely her. Can you believe it, JHB the voice of reason...
Her letter is a big moment in this issue.
It will be dismissed by the usual suspects from the Outrage Brigade.
If this Fallon incident is all there is then the whole 'issue' is a non-issue. But look again at the redacted Tory spreadsheet. That implies there's a whole lot more serious allegations to come.
I didn’t see as many accusations of a ‘witch hunt’/criticism of the allegations when it was Jared O’Mara last week. As soon as it’s become about Tories, now it’s an overreaction.
The Tories may have dug a bit of a hole for themselves there. They can hardly argue about overreactions when they were calling for a by-election over some, admittedly appalling (and I wouldn't have been too sad to see the back of him) words, and then call a political witch hunt on actual harassment, even if as in the Fallon case the victim has brushed it off.
There's also a bit of a class element to it - O'Mara behaved like a grotesque thug, and so was easy to dismiss as beyond the pale. Wandering hands at a posh function, well it's just high jinks or unfortunate behaviour - if we had to resign for that the House of Lords would be half empty.
As I said at the time, the stuff on the message boards wasn't really the story. The recent incident in the nightclub was a different matter.
I didn’t see as many accusations of a ‘witch hunt’/criticism of the allegations when it was Jared O’Mara last week. As soon as it’s become about Tories, now it’s an overreaction.
Well you should have read more closely, as plenty said while o’mara Seems to be an arse he did not seem to have done anything worthy of resignation and others went further and felt guido and others trawling through social media was wrong. The call for caution is entirely fair so victims of harassment and abuse do not get trivialised alongside those who merely encountered arseholes like o'mara or, should this be the end of his allegations, fallon like inappropriateness which needs apology but is not monstrous.
You’ve jumped the gun on the ‘oh, so it’s ok when Tories do it’ claims. Will there be some of that? It’s the internet of course, o’mara famously did the same in reverse, but there were plenty who were not so partisan.
Well you should have read my post closely because I said specifically at the start ‘I didn’t see as many accusations’ implying that there were some. I’d thought I’d preface the post with that in order to avoid this very response from yourself.
There were also not ‘plenty’ who were not parstian. There were a few who didn’t agree with the backlash, but not as many as there are now.
The Tories may have dug a bit of a hole for themselves there. They can hardly argue about overreactions when they were calling for a by-election over some, admittedly appalling (and I wouldn't have been too sad to see the back of him) words, and then call a political witch hunt on actual harassment, even if as in the Fallon case the victim has brushed it off.
There's also a bit of a class element to it - O'Mara behaved like a grotesque thug, and so was easy to dismiss as beyond the pale. Wandering hands at a posh function, well it's just high jinks or unfortunate behaviour - if we had to resign for that the House of Lords would be half empty.
James Cleverly and Nusrat Ghani in particular look very silly. Both were moralising in the last few weeks - Cleverly on the O’Mara issue, Ghani wanted to call an urgent debate over Clive Lewis’ comments. Looking at her twitter feed, I’ve not seen her call out some of her colleagues after the Sunday newspaper revelations in anyway like the same way.
Sussex University free speech society told to submit guest's speech for approval in case it violates 'safe space' policy
They claimed that their first speaker, the Ukip MEP Bill Etheridge, has been effectively “no-platformed” due to a “prohibitive” list of restrictions imposed by the students' union, which includes having his speech approved by a panel in advance.
The society was told that Mr Etheridge’s talk about Libertarianism and free speech had been deemed “medium/high risk”
If new/used car prices rise by (for eg) £50, but that means some British person gets stable employment and a liveable wage then that's a good thing.
Except that some (in fact most) British persons will not do the work. One of the farming programmes on the Beeb researched the issue, and due to the reduction in the numbers of field workers from the EU, the wages had actually increased significantly above the living wage, and still, no or very, very few Brits wanted the jobs. Extrapolation from the farmers is that after Brexit, is that fruit and other seasonal vegetables will rot in the fields. Machinery is not an option as it would have to be very expensive to have the skills to pick the ripe fruit and leave the ripening till later, and have the versatility to work different crops.
Sussex University free speech society told to submit guest's speech for approval in case it violates 'safe space' policy
They claimed that their first speaker, the Ukip MEP Bill Etheridge, has been effectively “no-platformed” due to a “prohibitive” list of restrictions imposed by the students' union, which includes having his speech approved by a panel in advance.
The society was told that Mr Etheridge’s talk about Libertarianism and free speech had been deemed “medium/high risk”
Good for her. One of the few pieces of grown-up thinking I have seen today. She is absolutely right.
She's tweeted it, so it's definitely her. Can you believe it, JHB the voice of reason...
Her letter is a big moment in this issue.
It will be dismissed by the usual suspects from the Outrage Brigade.
If this Fallon incident is all there is then the whole 'issue' is a non-issue. But look again at the redacted Tory spreadsheet. That implies there's a whole lot more serious allegations to come.
I now think Davis will be the likely next Tory leader and PM after May and lead the Tories into the general election, if Boris is to become Tory leader it will most likely be as Leader of the Opposition but he will have to fight Jacob Rees-Mogg for it.
Davis is too old and beyond ambition, now. He can barely muster the energy for Brexit.
I suspect a younger, bolder man or woman will ascend.
Provided we get some sort of deal or clear moves towards it he will be in a strong position and a general election could only be a year or two away, if a younger man or woman is to ascend they need to climb the ranks of the Cabinet pretty fast.
With many old and tainted figures at the top, you wouldn't need to be too senior to get some recognition enough to be credible, perhaps. Maybe not Department of Administrative Affairs minor, but relatively so.
They will likely have to be a Leaver though and in government a new PM almost always holds one of the great offices of state, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary or Chancellor, though Davis as Secretary of State for Brexit, a new post but dealing with the defining matter of our age, probably qualifies on that score now too.
Good point - when was the list time between GEs that a PM was replaced by someone who was not Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary or Chancellor?
1940.
Sir Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty before he became PM.
Churchill had previously been Chancellor of the Exchequer, though, from 1924 to 29.
Fallon touching a woman's knee 15 years ago is hardly the Profumo Scandal.....if that is the best the tabloids have - sending an assistant to Ann Summers and an aging Tory warhorse touching a knee Tory HQ will be sleeping well tonight......
As I said at the time, the stuff on the message boards wasn't really the story. The recent incident in the nightclub was a different matter.
Although the incident in the nightclub showed him to be a dismal human being, and totally unreformed, again it was words from the man himself. He asked the club's bouncers to kick out the women he rowed with, and they did what an awful lot of bouncers do to both blokes and women and did so with no care to if they might injure the person concerned. I've had a friend get a broken arm after being shoved into a railing by them. The woman quoted in The Sun as getting a black eye says she "didn't know if they did it deliberately" and in the end just told the police to talk to the bouncers about how they treat customers.
It's pretty disgusting behaviour, and certainly combines with the litany of evidence to show he's a thuggish fool who shouldn't have ever been near a candidate selection, but it's his bouncer who's the main one at fault - importantly O'Mara's not personally implicated in breaking the law - but Tory MPs called for his sacking and resignation. I'm kind of sympathetic, as one less idiot in parliament might not be a bad thing. But MPs who have harassed women have broken the law, and may have done so on the job - which, along with more minor inappropriate behaviour (e.g. the minister for dildos) in the workplace, would be grounds for a sacking (or resignation).
Now, I'm not going to march around demanding every MP that chatted up a staffer resign - but by setting the bar at O'Mara's height - namely behaviour that's merely reprehensible rather than obvious misconduct they find themselves in a rather hypocritical position in saying someone who (as far as we know) just acts like a dick to women should be fired, while those who allegedly wave theirs at them should be granted leniency.
Fallon touching a woman's knee 15 years ago is hardly the Profumo Scandal.....if that is the best the tabloids have - sending an assistant to Ann Summers and an aging Tory warhorse touching a knee Tory HQ will be sleeping well tonight......
Oh jeez it gets even more ridiculous....15 years ago...I thought the way the story was being splashed it was as if it happened last Tory party conference.
Fallon touching a woman's knee 15 years ago is hardly the Profumo Scandal.....if that is the best the tabloids have - sending an assistant to Ann Summers and an aging Tory warhorse touching a knee Tory HQ will be sleeping well tonight......
I hadn't realised it was 15 years ago, although I suppose "Minister touches woman's knee 15 years ago" doesn't quite work as a headline.
A Netflix spokesperson confirmed to Guardian Australia that the decision to end the show was made months earlier, and not in response to the allegations about Spacey surfacing.
A Netflix spokesperson confirmed to Guardian Australia that the decision to end the show was made months earlier, and not in response to the allegations about Spacey surfacing.
A Netflix spokesperson confirmed to Guardian Australia that the decision to end the show was made months earlier, and not in response to the allegations about Spacey surfacing.
A Netflix spokesperson confirmed to Guardian Australia that the decision to end the show was made months earlier, and not in response to the allegations about Spacey surfacing.
A Netflix spokesperson confirmed to Guardian Australia that the decision to end the show was made months earlier, and not in response to the allegations about Spacey surfacing.
If new/used car prices rise by (for eg) £50, but that means some British person gets stable employment and a liveable wage then that's a good thing.
It's not a one-to-one substitution. You can't replace 10,000 RomBulHungrians at 10p a hour with 10,000 Brits at £10 a hour. The numbers will collapse until the ones that are left can still turn a profit at £10 a hour, which will be far less.
Plus if wages go up and productivity goes down, you get inflation as the cost of making a good goes up. So the "British person with stable employment and a liveable wage" that you mention now doesn't have a livable wage any more, because the cost of everything is going up.
Anyhoo, explaining economics is not what I came here to do. Whilst we all turn into freelance arbiters of the moral worth of other people, China is about to turn 20% of humanity into prisoners in a Black Mirror episode. For real. By 2020. And there is no escape. Holy shit.
Comments
Was it inappropriate contact? Very probably.
Was it unwise? Certainly
Was it really that bad? That is doubtful
Anyway, it was apparently Fallon that got handsy with Julia Hartley Hare. Not earth shattering stuff so far.
I'm not saying do away with democracy, that's frankly a very silly interpretation. Democracy is not perfect, as we all know, but it's the best option we have, and that when we cast our vote we cannot know for certain if that great campaigner is going to be the best actual PM or not does not mean I think the vote is pointless.
After all, PMs and leaders lacking in the charisma of their rivals make the same argument at every election cycle - my opponent may be a better speaker/campaigner than me, but I am the better leader/have the best ideas. They are saying that campaigning skills are not the same as leading skills; is that them saying we should dispense with democracy?
If it is purely a matter of prior experience that is important, then I could typify your argument as saying we should never change government at all, but that too would be silly.
(*Sorry about the pun)
https://order-order.com/2017/10/30/fallon-im-sorry-for-touching-julias-knee/
Then we get into how big a department is big enough. Health is not one of the Great Offices of State but it a hugely complicated area of massive importance and enormous spending, that's probably important enough. Is Transport a big enough department? The Home Office no longer has responsibility for Justice, is it really still important enough?
It's not clear cut even with the cut offs you suggest, so while I think it improbablesomeone without such experience would be suitable, I'm not ruling it as impossible either. The young chap in Austria probably had people say he was too young for the senior positions he held previously, but apparently it worked out just fine.
I hope that letter is widely used in the media tomorrow
Top news
I felt her knee
she told me to piss off
so I did
It is possible that the Health Secretary could have an outside chance at doing the job but there is no young person in that role either at the moment, Hunt is 50.
Even Kurz 'the young chap in Austria' was Austrian Foreign Minister before he won their general election and became PM, he did not come completely from nowhere.
Perspective and context are everything.
All politics is local I suppose.
https://order-order.com/2017/10/29/tory-aides-spreadsheet-names-36-sex-pest-mps/
But we are going in circles, so I will reiterate for a final time and call it quits - the point is not that experience is not an important criteria to have in most instances, but what you are asserting as the only kind of relevant experience is merely your opinion, and also somewhat arbitrary. We choose to elect people with no government experience to government, that is democracy and we'd never switch governments otherwise, but in this country there is no experience to truly prepare you. A US Governor will perhaps have some insight into the role of US President, but a LOTO has no real insight into the role of PM. They cannot. We decide that the risk they are an empty campaigner with no skill at administration is worth it, because that's the price of democracy, but it is not a preparation for leading the government in my opinion. Happily, most turn out to be no more than a little crappy, the skills they have sufficient. But we didn't have proof, and it is wrong in my view to rule out someone else entirely because they don't happen to occupy one of say 4 posts in government. A LOTO might have come from the backbenches and then become PM in the course of a year or two, so theoretically hundreds have the opportunity, but a few dozen more minor ministers must be ruled out entirely? Unfair.
I very much doubt that that is all there is though.
We need to wait and see if a serious allegation is made against someone and is properly a police matter
So unless more facts emerge, she has saved his career.
GET YOUR PITCHFORKS HERE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uJLc-LjhJA
1) There was no power dynamic between Hartley Brewer and Michael Fallon so far as I am aware. He is a politician, she is a journo - not particularly a defence correspondent which would satisfy the point, albeit stretched.
2) They are both adults.
3) It was at a party conference dinner, that is outside work time and no doubt the booze was flowing.
4) Are we really going to go on a witch hunt for clumsy flirting ? Hartley-Brewer is obviously not phased by the incident and dealt with it there and then in a fitting manner.
The only person Fallon should be explaining this incident to is his wife !
She very clearly believes that there was no harassment here and has stated it directly in order to ensure that those who have suffered harassment or assault are not dismissed.
Should have hidden it, shouldn't you
Now you're not satisfied
With what you're being put through
It's just time to pay the price
For not listening to advice
And deciding in your youth
On the policy of truth
Things could be so different now
It used to be so civilised
You will always wonder how
It could have been if you'd only lied
It's too late to change events
It's time to face the consequence
For delivering the proof
In the policy of truth
Never again
Is what you swore
The time before
Now you're standing there tongue tied
You'd better learn your lesson well
Hide what you have to hide
And tell what you have to tell
You'll see your problems multiplied
If you continually decide
To faithfully pursue
The policy of truth
Never again
Is what you swore
The time before
- Martin L. Gore of Depeche Mode, 1990
There's also a bit of a class element to it - O'Mara behaved like a grotesque thug, and so was easy to dismiss as beyond the pale. Wandering hands at a posh function, well it's just high jinks or unfortunate behaviour - if we had to resign for that the House of Lords would be half empty.
You’ve jumped the gun on the ‘oh, so it’s ok when Tories do it’ claims. Will there be some of that? It’s the internet of course, o’mara famously did the same in reverse, but there were plenty who were not so partisan.
This is what is happening at the very bottom of the labour market;
https://www.am-online.com/news/dealer-news/2017/10/30/car-dealers-should-expect-significant-rises-in-valeting-costs-due-to-brexit
One of the few positives of brexit, IMO.
If new/used car prices rise by (for eg) £50, but that means some British person gets stable employment and a liveable wage then that's a good thing.
There were also not ‘plenty’ who were not parstian. There were a few who didn’t agree with the backlash, but not as many as there are now.
They claimed that their first speaker, the Ukip MEP Bill Etheridge, has been effectively “no-platformed” due to a “prohibitive” list of restrictions imposed by the students' union, which includes having his speech approved by a panel in advance.
The society was told that Mr Etheridge’s talk about Libertarianism and free speech had been deemed “medium/high risk”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/10/30/sussex-university-free-speech-society-told-submit-guests-speech/
https://twitter.com/Daily_Express/status/925150076309094400
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/925019026455236608
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/924980282964545536
http://deadline.com/2017/10/house-of-cards-canceled-kevin-spacey-scandal-netflix-season-six-1202197604/
As I said at the time, the stuff on the message boards wasn't really the story. The recent incident in the nightclub was a different matter.
Although the incident in the nightclub showed him to be a dismal human being, and totally unreformed, again it was words from the man himself. He asked the club's bouncers to kick out the women he rowed with, and they did what an awful lot of bouncers do to both blokes and women and did so with no care to if they might injure the person concerned. I've had a friend get a broken arm after being shoved into a railing by them. The woman quoted in The Sun as getting a black eye says she "didn't know if they did it deliberately" and in the end just told the police to talk to the bouncers about how they treat customers.
It's pretty disgusting behaviour, and certainly combines with the litany of evidence to show he's a thuggish fool who shouldn't have ever been near a candidate selection, but it's his bouncer who's the main one at fault - importantly O'Mara's not personally implicated in breaking the law - but Tory MPs called for his sacking and resignation. I'm kind of sympathetic, as one less idiot in parliament might not be a bad thing. But MPs who have harassed women have broken the law, and may have done so on the job - which, along with more minor inappropriate behaviour (e.g. the minister for dildos) in the workplace, would be grounds for a sacking (or resignation).
Now, I'm not going to march around demanding every MP that chatted up a staffer resign - but by setting the bar at O'Mara's height - namely behaviour that's merely reprehensible rather than obvious misconduct they find themselves in a rather hypocritical position in saying someone who (as far as we know) just acts like a dick to women should be fired, while those who allegedly wave theirs at them should be granted leniency.
https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2017/oct/31/netflix-ends-house-of-cards-amid-kevin-spacey-allegations
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/925144729548935169
https://twitter.com/GeorgePapa19/status/923078894634270720
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5033411/Russia-s-man-connected-Trump-aide-Putin-s-niece.html
And Zelo Street, who is occasionally on the ball sees links to Farage:
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.id/2017/10/nigel-farage-its-mueller-time.html
Plus if wages go up and productivity goes down, you get inflation as the cost of making a good goes up. So the "British person with stable employment and a liveable wage" that you mention now doesn't have a livable wage any more, because the cost of everything is going up.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/chinese-government-social-credit-score-privacy-invasion