So, to be clear, a woman journalist in her late twenties posing in a corset for a photo published in the Times is beyond reproach, but a friend making a light-hearted reference to seeing the photo is not?
OK... I think I'm getting the hang of this new prudery malarkey.
We're all Puritans now Richard.
The Department for the Moral Hygiene of the country will be set up shortly.
Yep.
It occurred to me this evening that there's a wonderful example of the hypocrisy: Michael Gove making a rather funny joke comparing being interviewed on Today with a visit to Harvey Weinstein's hotel room is beyond the pale - trivialising rape etc etc - but Harriet Harman quipping about rumours of a leadership bid that "when a woman says no, she means no" was OK.
Harriet is beyond reproach and Gove is evil - surely that was covered in the first lesson in your re-education process?
@faisalislam: Labour will use Opposition Day to put what it says is a binding vote forcing DEXEU to release 58 Brexit impact studies to Commons Committee
@faisalislam: ..Starmer will use ancient procedure called a “Motion for Unopposed Returns” via a “humble address to Her Majesty” to get the impact studies
Erskine May p133 on returns (call for production of papers)
Each House has the power to callfor the production of papers by means of a motion for a return. A return from the privy council or from departments headed by a secretary of state is called for by means of an humble address to the sovereign... It is rarely resorted to in modern circumstances since much of the information previously sought in this way is now produced incommand papers or in act papers or in response to questions. However the power has a continuing importance since it is regularly delegated to select committees, thus enabling them to send for papers an records.
In the commons the procedure also survives in the form of 'motions for unopposed returns' for particular documents which the minister responsible for the government department concerned wishes to make public (hence they are 'unopposed') but in respectof which the protection of statute afforded by an order of the House for printing or other publication is sought... The power to send for papers by means of a motion for unopposed return extends to papers which are in the possession of Ministers or which Ministers have the authority to obtain. Papers should be ordered only on subjects which are of public or official character.
p352
Immediately after private business is the usual time for moving motions for returns of which notice stands upon the notice paper for the day, and which the minister responsible for the government department concerned has signified his readiness to render. Such motions are made by Ministers, and may be made either at this time or at an other convenient opportunity.
Because it is a settled principle that a motion for a return which is proposed by the Minister responsible for the department concerned ought not to be opposed by any other member, such opposition has been overruled by the Speaker.
In bold what Labour are relying on?
Seems like the power is used almost exclusively by ministers now, but the opening line does say the House has the power, so perhaps others can do so?
Let's be honest, if the power to decide this rests with the Speaker, Bercow will not hesitate to use the opportunity to embarrass the government.
So, to be clear, a woman journalist in her late twenties posing in a corset for a photo published in the Times is beyond reproach, but a friend making a light-hearted reference to seeing the photo is not?
OK... I think I'm getting the hang of this new prudery malarkey.
We're all Puritans now Richard.
The Department for the Moral Hygiene of the country will be set up shortly.
Yep.
It occurred to me this evening that there's a wonderful example of the hypocrisy: Michael Gove making a rather funny joke comparing being interviewed on Today with a visit to Harvey Weinstein's hotel room is beyond the pale - trivialising rape etc etc - but Harriet Harman quipping about rumours of a leadership bid that "when a woman says no, she means no" was OK.
Harriet is beyond reproach and Gove is evil - surely that was covered in the first lesson in your re-education process?
My re-education is going badly, I fear.
So it would seem. A further 12 hours watching Anita Sarkesian videos on YouTube and you might start to see the light...
@faisalislam: Labour will use Opposition Day to put what it says is a binding vote forcing DEXEU to release 58 Brexit impact studies to Commons Committee
@faisalislam: ..Starmer will use ancient procedure called a “Motion for Unopposed Returns” via a “humble address to Her Majesty” to get the impact studies
Erskine May p133 on returns (call for production of papers)
Each House has the power to callfor the production of papers by means of a motion for a return. A return from the privy council or from departments headed by a secretary of state is called for by means of an humble address to the sovereign... It is rarely resorted to in modern circumstances since much of the information previously sought in this way is now produced incommand papers or in act papers or in response to questions. However the power has a continuing importance since it is regularly delegated to select committees, thus enabling them to send for papers an records.
In the commons the procedure also survives in the form of 'motions for unopposed returns' for particular documents which the minister responsible for the government department concerned wishes to make public (hence they are 'unopposed') but in respectof which the protection of statute afforded by an order of the House for printing or other publication is sought... The power to send for papers by means of a motion for unopposed return extends to papers which are in the possession of Ministers or which Ministers have the authority to obtain. Papers should be ordered only on subjects which are of public or official character.
p352
Immediately after private business is the usual time for moving motions for returns of which notice stands upon the notice paper for the day, and which the minister responsible for the government department concerned has signified his readiness to render. Such motions are made by Ministers, and may be made either at this time or at an other convenient opportunity.
Because it is a settled principle that a motion for a return which is proposed by the Minister responsible for the department concerned ought not to be opposed by any other member, such opposition has been overruled by the Speaker.
In bold what Labour are relying on?
Seems like the power is used almost exclusively by ministers now, but the opening line does say the House has the power, so perhaps others can do so?
Let's be honest, if the power to decide this rests with the Speaker, Bercow will not hesitate to use the opportunity to embarrass the government.
Pretty fair. He can frame it as standing up for the power of the House, for a start.
Let's be honest, if the power to decide this rests with the Speaker, Bercow will not hesitate to use the opportunity to embarrass the government.
Which would be fine, except that in this case there can be no doubt that publishing the studies will severely damage the national interest. Labour are being utterly cynical (well there's a surprise...)
@faisalislam: Labour will use Opposition Day to put what it says is a binding vote forcing DEXEU to release 58 Brexit impact studies to Commons Committee
@faisalislam: ..Starmer will use ancient procedure called a “Motion for Unopposed Returns” via a “humble address to Her Majesty” to get the impact studies
Erskine May p133 on returns (call for production of papers)
Each House has the power to callfor the production of papers by means of a motion for a return. A return from the privy council or from departments headed by a secretary of state is called for by means of an humble address to the sovereign... It is rarely resorted to in modern circumstances since much of the information previously sought in this way is now produced incommand papers or in act papers or in response to questions. However the power has a continuing importance since it is regularly delegated to select committees, thus enabling them to send for papers an records.
In the commons the procedure also survives in the form of 'motions for unopposed returns' for particular documents which the minister responsible for the government department concerned wishes to make public (hence they are 'unopposed') but in respectof which the protecti
p352
Immediately after private business is the usual time for moving motions for returns of which notice stands upon the notice paper for the day, and which the minister responsible for the government department concerned has signified his readiness to render. Such motions are made by Ministers, and may be made either at this time or at an other convenient opportunity.
Because it is a settled principle that a motion for a return which is proposed by the Minister responsible for the department concerned ought not to be opposed by any other member, such opposition has been overruled by the Speaker.
In bold what Labour are relying on?
But the text also states that unopposed returns are only proposed by a minister?
So it would seem - cherry pick the bit in bold and it seems possible, but in the context (and I haven't included some bits that didn't seem relevant) it seems like a ministerial option, that the executive wants to release info but some part of the law requires approval of the house first.
But I assume advice was sought from the Clerk to the House, and it may be the latest, unpublished edition has been updated or there is some other precedent that applies that for brevity is not included.
So, to be clear, a woman journalist in her late twenties posing in a corset for a photo published in the Times is beyond reproach, but a friend making a light-hearted reference to seeing the photo is not?
OK... I think I'm getting the hang of this new prudery malarkey.
We're all Puritans now Richard.
The Department for the Moral Hygiene of the country will be set up shortly.
Yep.
It occurred to me this evening that there's a wonderful example of the hypocrisy: Michael Gove making a rather funny joke comparing being interviewed on Today with a visit to Harvey Weinstein's hotel room is beyond the pale - trivialising rape etc etc - but Harriet Harman quipping about rumours of a leadership bid that "when a woman says no, she means no" was OK.
Harriet is beyond reproach and Gove is evil - surely that was covered in the first lesson in your re-education process?
My re-education is going badly, I fear.
I wonder what my re-education syllabus looks like.
Let's be honest, if the power to decide this rests with the Speaker, Bercow will not hesitate to use the opportunity to embarrass the government.
Which would be fine, except that in this case there can be no doubt that publishing the studies will severely damage the national interest. Labour are being utterly cynical (well there's a surprise...)
You don't go into any negotiations by publishing everything you have. Starmer knows that. He also knows that he would not find it any easier if he were ever to have to deal with this sort of complex negotiation.
@faisalislam: Labour will use Opposition Day to put what it says is a binding vote forcing DEXEU to release 58 Brexit impact studies to Commons Committee
@faisalislam: ..Starmer will use ancient procedure called a “Motion for Unopposed Returns” via a “humble address to Her Majesty” to get the impact studies
Erskin on?
But the text also states that unopposed returns are only proposed by a minister?
So it would seem - cherry pick the bit in bold and it seems possible, but in the context (and I haven't included some bits that didn't seem relevant) it seems like a ministerial option, that the executive wants to release info but some part of the law requires approval of the house first.
But I assume advice was sought from the Clerk to the House, and it may be the latest, unpublished edition has been updated or there is some other precedent that applies that for brevity is not included.
Or it’s a stunt.
Not the first time when it comes to arcane motions. I seem to recall a few years back Labour moved 'that the question be not now put' to some issue, and Ken Clarke, who has surely seen a thing or two, commented he had never seen such a motion put in his time in the House.
Mr Clarke: I have every respect for the strongly held views of quite a lot of Members, including a lot on my side, who do not agree with me on this evening’s measures, but I think we would win back the respect of the public if we had a serious debate on them. We will not if we bog ourselves down in arcane procedural arguments, most of which are a novelty to people sitting in the Chamber at the moment; we are going into hitherto unknown areas. I have never previously heard a Front-Bench spokesman move this motion at any stage in any serious debate, and I do not expect I will for many years to come.
So, to be clear, a woman journalist in her late twenties posing in a corset for a photo published in the Times is beyond reproach, but a friend making a light-hearted reference to seeing the photo is not?
OK... I think I'm getting the hang of this new prudery malarkey.
We're all Puritans now Richard.
The Department for the Moral Hygiene of the country will be set up shortly.
Yep.
It occurred to me this evening that there's a wonderful example of the hypocrisy: Michael Gove making a rather funny joke comparing being interviewed on Today with a visit to Harvey Weinstein's hotel room is beyond the pale - trivialising rape etc etc - but Harriet Harman quipping about rumours of a leadership bid that "when a woman says no, she means no" was OK.
Harriet is beyond reproach and Gove is evil - surely that was covered in the first lesson in your re-education process?
My re-education is going badly, I fear.
I wonder what my re-education syllabus looks like.
I dread to think. But I would get ready to watch The Red Pill...
@faisalislam: Labour will use Opposition Day to put what it says is a binding vote forcing DEXEU to release 58 Brexit impact studies to Commons Committee
@faisalislam: ..Starmer will use ancient procedure called a “Motion for Unopposed Returns” via a “humble address to Her Majesty” to get the impact studies
Erskin on?
But the text also states that unopposed returns are only proposed by a minister?
So it would seem - cherry pick the bit in bold and it seems possible, but in the context (and I haven't included some bits that didn't seem relevant) it seems like a ministerial option, that the executive wants to release info but some part of the law requires approval of the house first.
But I assume advice was sought from the Clerk to the House, and it may be the latest, unpublished edition has been updated or there is some other precedent that applies that for brevity is not included.
Or it’s a stunt.
Not the first time when it comes to arcane motions. I seem to recall a few years back Labour moved 'that the question be not now put' to some issue, and Ken Clarke, who has surely seen a thing or two, commented he had never seen such a motion put in his time in the House.
Mr Clarke: I have every respect for the strongly held views of quite a lot of Members, including a lot on my side, who do not agree with me on this evening’s measures, but I think we would win back the respect of the public if we had a serious debate on them. We will not if we bog ourselves down in arcane procedural arguments, most of which are a novelty to people sitting in the Chamber at the moment; we are going into hitherto unknown areas. I have never previously heard a Front-Bench spokesman move this motion at any stage in any serious debate, and I do not expect I will for many years to come.
Gove is not evil (of course he isn’t). But that unfunny ‘joke’ he said probably demonstrates why the Tories should avoid electing him leader after May leaves.
Gove is not evil (of course he isn’t). But that unfunny ‘joke’ he said probably demonstrates why the Tories should avoid electing him leader after May leaves.
I thought it was pretty funny, in a deliberate offence sort of way, but it was unwise - there's a reason most PM's do not seem to go for much humour, no one will let you get away with anything slightly risque or dark. Unless it's a political jibe, or something self deprecating, leader's of the big two at least are probably better advised to keep it serious
Gove is not evil (of course he isn’t). But that unfunny ‘joke’ he said probably demonstrates why the Tories should avoid electing him leader after May leaves.
I thought it was pretty funny, in a deliberate offence sort of way, but it was unwise - there's a reason most PM's do not seem to go for much humour, no one will let you get away with anything slightly risque or dark. Unless it's a political jibe, or something self deprecating, leader's of the big two at least are probably better advised to keep it serious
Yep, you’re right. Cameron’s joke about twitter was quite good, though.
Gove is not evil (of course he isn’t). But that unfunny ‘joke’ he said probably demonstrates why the Tories should avoid electing him leader after May leaves.
I thought it was pretty funny, in a deliberate offence sort of way, but it was unwise - there's a reason most PM's do not seem to go for much humour, no one will let you get away with anything slightly risque or dark. Unless it's a political jibe, or something self deprecating, leader's of the big two at least are probably better advised to keep it serious
Yep, you’re right. Cameron’s joke about twitter was quite good, though.
Some things are just captured perfectly and get a pass. I think one of his funniest moments though was also, in fairness, a bit cruel, responding to a pretty lame attempt at a joke from Ed M about Cameron and Clegg supposedly not getting along, hitting back that Ed M should not believe all he reads, and that it was not as they were brothers (this around the time of many reports of how the Milibands were not even speaking, or similar). Very good delivery, and at the right moment in time.
Random Erskine May thought for the night - full speech notes are not permitted in the Lords except for rare prepared misterial statements, being alien to the customs of the house and injurious to the conduct of its debates, but it also says exhibits should not be taken into the chamber or produced to illustrate a point. Clearly not a rule in the US Senate, as it seems many a silly graphic on a presentation board is used.
Even if some of the things on the spreadsheet are not serious enough to force a resignation, surely we need to consider Theresa May's likely reaction.
A picture earlier today showed her looking absolutely devastated. Remember she goes to church (and appears to take it seriously) so it seems quite likely she may well be very shocked by even some of the minor stuff.
It must be quite possible that this leads to the likes of Green getting reshuffled out of the Cabinet.
So, to be clear, a woman journalist in her late twenties posing in a corset for a photo published in the Times is beyond reproach, but a friend making a light-hearted reference to seeing the photo is not?
OK... I think I'm getting the hang of this new prudery malarkey.
I think, perhaps not for the first time, you're missing the point here.
There is no bright line between what constitutes serious sexual harassment on one hand, and the rather pathetic spectacle of middle aged married men making passes at younger women on the other - and opinions (particularly of the parties involved) are likely to vary as where on the continuum a particular story lies.
That the media should take advantage of the current furore to publish embarrassing stories like this is hardly a surprise; that Mrs May should have referred this immediately to the cabinet office perhaps more of one, and which perhaps says more about her than any 'new prudery' you claim to detect.
I didn't see anything wrong with that 'joke' except that it wasn't very funny. The only person it gave offense to was Weinstein. If we're going to start objecting to that sort of simile conversation is going to become very flat and dull.
I mentioned last night that some UK based associates of Farage were people of interest to the current FBI investigation and whilst Farage's name kept coming up in documentation it wasn't clear if he could be described as a person of interest.
He is. He looks likely to have done some interesting errands for others.
Legal disclaimer: 'Of interest' does not necessarily imply committing a crime
There may be a USA polarisation over Trump, but fortunately the constitutional framers were careful. Still, Trump would, I feel, be better knotted up in a corner somewhere obscure.
Agreed. My money is still on him completing his first term. If he gets impeached it will be in the second term like Nixon and Clinton. It just takes that long for the momentum to build.
We'll see. If he is to go down, my guess is that it would be something to do with dodgy money rather than grand Russian conspiracies.
There may be a USA polarisation over Trump, but fortunately the constitutional framers were careful. Still, Trump would, I feel, be better knotted up in a corner somewhere obscure.
Agreed. My money is still on him completing his first term. If he gets impeached it will be in the second term like Nixon and Clinton. It just takes that long for the momentum to build.
We'll see. If he is to go down, my guess is that it would be something to do with dodgy money rather than grand Russian conspiracies.
Even if some of the things on the spreadsheet are not serious enough to force a resignation, surely we need to consider Theresa May's likely reaction.
A picture earlier today showed her looking absolutely devastated. Remember she goes to church (and appears to take it seriously) so it seems quite likely she may well be very shocked by even some of the minor stuff.
It must be quite possible that this leads to the likes of Green getting reshuffled out of the Cabinet.
Two of the four frontrunners in the unofficial leadership contest are named, and so is another possible who has been steady a short way behind. Rees-Mogg is now equal favourite at Betfair and is still marvellous value to my mind:
Even if some of the things on the spreadsheet are not serious enough to force a resignation, surely we need to consider Theresa May's likely reaction.
A picture earlier today showed her looking absolutely devastated. Remember she goes to church (and appears to take it seriously) so it seems quite likely she may well be very shocked by even some of the minor stuff.
It must be quite possible that this leads to the likes of Green getting reshuffled out of the Cabinet.
Two of the four frontrunners in the unofficial leadership contest are named, and so is another possible who has been steady a short way behind. Rees-Mogg is now equal favourite at Betfair and is still marvellous value to my mind:
Rees-Mogg 6.8-7.4 Johnson 7-7.4 Davis 7.2-7.6
This is a difficulty market, because we don't know when the contest will take place. It is entirely possible that two years from now Brexit has been concluded in a satisfactory way, with an FTA agreed between ourselves and the EU. if the economy is humming at that point, why would Theresa step down?
Alternatively, imagine if the UK were to experience a severe recession in the next 18 months. (Not Brexit related, perhaps simply caused by the UK savings rate ticking up a free percentage points.) And then imagine the Brexit bill can't get through the House, thanks to DUP and Tory rebels. Under those circumstances the government would fall and a coronation would become a necessity.
Some of the names on the list seem unfair - people who have had consensual affairs for example. Its the "inappropriate behaviour with male/female researchers" and "handsy" that are wrong. And its not party political as today's Labour rape allegation demonstrates.
It appears to be men with delusions of power choosing to exercise their "power" over "subordinate" men and women in a sexual manner. Because its not about sex, its power. I am being "handsy" because I am more important than you and can do what I like. Its pathetic.
It's worth bearing in mind that politics is quite a "handsy" career - the double handshake with one hand on the elbow, the arm over the shoulder. (Was it Macron and Trump who had that handshake where neither wanted to break first?)
This is not to condone anything inappropriate, of course, but just to set the scene
So, to be clear, a woman journalist in her late twenties posing in a corset for a photo published in the Times is beyond reproach, but a friend making a light-hearted reference to seeing the photo is not?
OK... I think I'm getting the hang of this new prudery malarkey.
Key question is "are you a Tory"? That determines guilty or innocence
@faisalislam: Labour will use Opposition Day to put what it says is a binding vote forcing DEXEU to release 58 Brexit impact studies to Commons Committee
@faisalislam: ..Starmer will use ancient procedure called a “Motion for Unopposed Returns” via a “humble address to Her Majesty” to get the impact studies
Cute but not convinced it works (has to be s motion moved in the name of a minister for example)
(ii) "Unopposed Returns"—Governments may also lay papers by an older procedure: by moving a motion in the House for the "unopposed return" of the document they wish to lay before the House and be printed on its authority. The large number of papers now required to be laid by statute, combined with the more frequent use of "Command Papers" might have been expected to make this procedure obsolete. It has survived very largely[86] because of uncertainty over the extent to which Command Papers have absolute privilege. The procedure of an "unopposed" return was introduced originally to avoid the inconvenience of the House of having formally to consider motions by ministers for returns of largely uncontroversial information from their own Departments. It is now used by ministers almost exclusively in order to ensure that a report of a ministerial inquiry will not be subject to actions for defamation. Use of the procedure is infrequent. It is not popular with Departments since it involves three stages: a motion for the return in the name of the minister must be tabled (like any other motion) on a sitting day, moved (like any other motion) on a sitting day, and the return made (by publication of the report) on a sitting day. Most typically the report is of such moment that it is published on the day on which the motion is moved (though this is not essential) and the Minister will make a statement upon it to the House at 3.30 pm. Although other Members cannot oppose the motion, the procedure ensures that Members receive clear notice of presentation. A list of recent unopposed returns is set out in Annex B.
That reads to me as if it is a procedure for the use of governments - not the opposition.
Possible that a motion for an unopposed return is different. Still, hard to imagine there being a procedure to force the government to release papers that is hardly ever used....
It's a process the government uses to get documents out under the protection of Parliamentary Privilege (my reading). I guess you could have an oppo day motion instructing a minister to move a motion for an imposed return but not sure it is binding?
It's just Starmer being cute to try an embarrass the government. Fair play to him on that front, but I'm not sure that being able to compel the government to publish sensitive documents should be that easy
Let's be honest, if the power to decide this rests with the Speaker, Bercow will not hesitate to use the opportunity to embarrass the government.
Which would be fine, except that in this case there can be no doubt that publishing the studies will severely damage the national interest. Labour are being utterly cynical (well there's a surprise...)
You don't go into any negotiations by publishing everything you have. Starmer knows that. He also knows that he would not find it any easier if he were ever to have to deal with this sort of complex negotiation.
Beyond cynical.
Starmer is giving the impression that embarrassing the government is more important than achieving a successful deal with the EU. What possible benefit to Britain is there in publishing private government papers on a treaty negotiation which isn’t yet completed?
And even if Startmer and Bercow conspire to order them published, the government will surely stamp them “Top Secret” and release them 99% redacted anyway?
And all that happens in the meantime is that Davis and his department get distracted from what they’re supposed to be doing. Pointless and petty politics from Labour here
Comments
£350m a week for starters...
Beyond cynical.
Ah yes
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141110/debtext/141110-0003.htm
Mr Clarke: I have every respect for the strongly held views of quite a lot of Members, including a lot on my side, who do not agree with me on this evening’s measures, but I think we would win back the respect of the public if we had a serious debate on them. We will not if we bog ourselves down in arcane procedural arguments, most of which are a novelty to people sitting in the Chamber at the moment; we are going into hitherto unknown areas. I have never previously heard a Front-Bench spokesman move this motion at any stage in any serious debate, and I do not expect I will for many years to come.
Betting industry faces heavy losses as crackdown begins"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/gambling-industry-faces-heavy-losses-as-government-crackdown-begins-gdwhwqf6m
The investigation now has at least 3 individuals who look to have turned Queens evidence.
https://68.media.tumblr.com/f579e227f7dc89a7054446cf21a42cd1/tumblr_oki5vgg7CO1qiq36jo1_1280.jpg
This is a rather interesting detail from the Mueller investigation:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/why_a_judge_ruled_paul_manafort_isn_t_entitled_to_attorney_client_privilege.html
Damn those sodding Americans for ruining our language, it is behalf, not behalves.
Random Erskine May thought for the night - full speech notes are not permitted in the Lords except for rare prepared misterial statements, being alien to the customs of the house and injurious to the conduct of its debates, but it also says exhibits should not be taken into the chamber or produced to illustrate a point. Clearly not a rule in the US Senate, as it seems many a silly graphic on a presentation board is used.
A picture earlier today showed her looking absolutely devastated. Remember she goes to church (and appears to take it seriously) so it seems quite likely she may well be very shocked by even some of the minor stuff.
It must be quite possible that this leads to the likes of Green getting reshuffled out of the Cabinet.
There is no bright line between what constitutes serious sexual harassment on one hand, and the rather pathetic spectacle of middle aged married men making passes at younger women on the other - and opinions (particularly of the parties involved) are likely to vary as where on the continuum a particular story lies.
That the media should take advantage of the current furore to publish embarrassing stories like this is hardly a surprise; that Mrs May should have referred this immediately to the cabinet office perhaps more of one, and which perhaps says more about her than any 'new prudery' you claim to detect.
....and I loathe Michael Gove.
Probably fairer to blame their sodding lawyers for that particular usage.
I mentioned last night that some UK based associates of Farage were people of interest to the current FBI investigation and whilst Farage's name kept coming up in documentation it wasn't clear if he could be described as a person of interest.
He is. He looks likely to have done some interesting errands for others.
Legal disclaimer: 'Of interest' does not necessarily imply committing a crime
The New Yorker has some interested reflections on Manafort's alleged money laundering, which suggest that those involved in the practice have (up until now) good reason to expect not to be caught:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/paul-manafort-and-the-case-of-the-250000-antique-rug-store-bill
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11818088/Ashley-Madison-Former-Tory-minister-Damian-Green-denies-involvement-in-adultery-website.html
Lot of easily shocked people with very short memories about.....
Rees-Mogg 6.8-7.4
Johnson 7-7.4
Davis 7.2-7.6
http://suttonnick.tumblr.com/post/166994302866/hendopolis-the-times-labour-tried-to-cover-up
Also Mail & Telegraph...
Alternatively, imagine if the UK were to experience a severe recession in the next 18 months. (Not Brexit related, perhaps simply caused by the UK savings rate ticking up a free percentage points.) And then imagine the Brexit bill can't get through the House, thanks to DUP and Tory rebels. Under those circumstances the government would fall and a coronation would become a necessity.
This is not to condone anything inappropriate, of course, but just to set the scene
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/43ap53.htm
It's just Starmer being cute to try an embarrass the government. Fair play to him on that front, but I'm not sure that being able to compel the government to publish sensitive documents should be that easy
And even if Startmer and Bercow conspire to order them published, the government will surely stamp them “Top Secret” and release them 99% redacted anyway?
And all that happens in the meantime is that Davis and his department get distracted from what they’re supposed to be doing. Pointless and petty politics from Labour here