Someone on BF believes the neighbour story will scupper Boris.
Notable that the action is all on next Tory leader, and nothing on next PM. That very strongly suggests to me that this is actually someone trying to make the market move. (Boris is hardly likely to be next PM without him being Tory leader)
So. Dirty tricks. I Goven't got a clue who might be doing such things.
Gove 95 to lay. I thought if Boris dropped out, Hunt won?
All a row over Boris spilling wine on the sofa as I already pointed out before, no action taken, no complaint by either party, neighbour likely a Remainer
Do your mind reading abilities know no bounds ?
Not mind reading abilities the facts as set out in the article
The great thing about any dirt on Boris that emerges from now on, is even if it is aboslutely true it will rejected as a smear because clearly it comes from those desperate to stop him being leader, and therefore even if true it won't matter. The Tory Corbyn.
There was recently a young solicitor, Emily Scott, who was struck off for committing fraud on customers in her first job, at the behest of her bosses. There were quite a few mitigating circumstances but the SRA, rightly, took the view that a solicitor should be held to a high standard of integrity and fraud was not compatible with it. (You can read about the case here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/2019/04/).
I commented then -
"But the moral – however harsh it may seem – is that, ultimately, a professional – or someone aspiring to be one – is responsible for their own actions, that they need to do the right thing even if this prejudices their personal position and that acting dishonestly but saying to yourself “I’m not a dishonest person” may be comforting but is still a dangerous self-deception. It is our actions that make us what we are."
And now we have Hunt saying that Davies is an honest man. Well, no, not really: not if he was fiddling his expenses.
I know I sound ludicrously old-fashioned. But is it too much to expect MPs to have some semblance of integrity, to understand that fraud - even if it is for a small amount - is wrong and not something to be shrugged off or excused or waved away? They talk about trust over Brexit but don't seem to realise that trust can be eroded by just these sorts of evasions and lies and dishonesties carried out by people who make the laws for the rest of us, who are paid to exercise their judgment, who are well paid and who have not the same excuses as others might for chiselling cheating conduct.
Many of our MPs seem to be quite thick. Must they also be dishonest as well?
Someone on BF believes the neighbour story will scupper Boris.
Notable that the action is all on next Tory leader, and nothing on next PM. That very strongly suggests to me that this is actually someone trying to make the market move. (Boris is hardly likely to be next PM without him being Tory leader)
So. Dirty tricks. I Goven't got a clue who might be doing such things.
Gove 95 to lay. I thought if Boris dropped out, Hunt won?
I recall a few weeks back someone on here suggested the mistake last time was cancelling the members stage when Leadsom pulled out, rather than bumping up the third placed person and doing a ballot then. Someone assuming if Boris dropped out they'd restart the process with Gove and Hunt?
There was recently a young solicitor, Emily Scott, who was struck off for committing fraud on customers in her first job, at the behest of her bosses. There were quite a few mitigating circumstances but the SRA, rightly, took the view that a solicitor should be held to a high standard of integrity and fraud was not compatible with it. (You can read about the case here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/2019/04/).
I commented then -
"But the moral – however harsh it may seem – is that, ultimately, a professional – or someone aspiring to be one – is responsible for their own actions, that they need to do the right thing even if this prejudices their personal position and that acting dishonestly but saying to yourself “I’m not a dishonest person” may be comforting but is still a dangerous self-deception. It is our actions that make us what we are."
And now we have Hunt saying that Davies is an honest man. Well, no, not really: not if he was fiddling his expenses.
I know I sound ludicrously old-fashioned. But is it too much to expect MPs to have some semblance of integrity, to understand that fraud - even if it is for a small amount - is wrong and not something to be shrugged off or excused or waved away? They talk about trust over Brexit but don't seem to realise that trust can be eroded by just these sorts of evasions and lies and dishonesties carried out by people who make the laws for the rest of us, who are paid to exercise their judgment, who are well paid and who have not the same excuses as others might for chiselling cheating conduct.
Many of our MPs seem to be quite thick. Must they also be dishonest as well?
He was an honest man, if you ignore the dishonest stuff. It's like how Boris, Corbyn and Trump are great and honourable mem, if you ignore any of their flaws.
Someone on BF believes the neighbour story will scupper Boris.
Notable that the action is all on next Tory leader, and nothing on next PM. That very strongly suggests to me that this is actually someone trying to make the market move. (Boris is hardly likely to be next PM without him being Tory leader)
So. Dirty tricks. I Goven't got a clue who might be doing such things.
Gove 95 to lay. I thought if Boris dropped out, Hunt won?
I recall a few weeks back someone on here suggested the mistake last time was cancelling the members stage when Leadsom pulled out, rather than bumping up the third placed person and doing a ballot then. Someone assuming if Boris dropped out they'd restart the process with Gove and Hunt?
Seems so. I asked the Q earlier and was told Hunt would win a la May/Leadsom
The great thing about any dirt on Biros that emerges from now on, is even if it is aboslutely true it will rejected as a smear because clearly it comes from those desperate to stop him being leader, and therefore even if true it won't matter. The Tory Corbyn.
Yes it’s all false news from the despicable MSM which is now giving rather dubious politicians an opportunity to hide behind the claim that’s it all false news.
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
Who was doing the shouting if he was drinking alone? And he wasn't the one with the short temper, apparently.
Two MPs disqualified in the 1920s stood again with the blessing of their party. William Preston in 1927 (Walsall), and John Jacob Astor in 1924 (Dover). Astor was unopposed.
Yougov shows little difference in support for Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt with middle class voters, a Boris led Tory Party gets 34% with ABC1s if we leave the EU in October and a Hunt led one gets 32% while if we have not left in October a Boris led Tory Party gets 20% with ABC1s and a Hunt led one gets 19%.
The main difference between the two is Boris does better with working class voters. If we leave the EU in October a Boris led Tory Party gets 34% with C2DEs and a Hunt led Tories gets 27% and if we have not left the EU in October a Boris led Tory Party gets 19% with C2DEs and a Hunt led Tories gets 15%.
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
Churchill reputedly drank quite dilute whiskey almost from breakfast. Whenever I've tried such a thing I find I need to go to bed before lunch.
There was recently a young solicitor, Emily Scott, who was struck off for committing fraud on customers in her first job, at the behest of her bosses. There were quite a few mitigating circumstances but the SRA, rightly, took the view that a solicitor should be held to a high standard of integrity and fraud was not compatible with it. (You can read about the case here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/2019/04/).
I commented then -
"But the moral – however harsh it may seem – is that, ultimately, a professional – or someone aspiring to be one – is responsible for their own actions, that they need to do the right thing even if this prejudices their personal position and that acting dishonestly but saying to yourself “I’m not a dishonest person” may be comforting but is still a dangerous self-deception. It is our actions that make us what we are."
And now we have Hunt saying that Davies is an honest man. Well, no, not really: not if he was fiddling his expenses.
I know I sound ludicrously old-fashioned. But is it too much to expect MPs to have some semblance of integrity, to understand that fraud - even if it is for a small amount - is wrong and not something to be shrugged off or excused or waved away? They talk about trust over Brexit but don't seem to realise that trust can be eroded by just these sorts of evasions and lies and dishonesties carried out by people who make the laws for the rest of us, who are paid to exercise their judgment, who are well paid and who have not the same excuses as others might for chiselling cheating conduct....
No, it is not. And it is extraordinary that those who identify as ‘conservatives’ should take the opposite view.
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
Churchill reputedly drank quite dilute whiskey almost from breakfast. Whenever I've tried such a thing I find I need to go to bed before lunch.
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
Churchill reputedly drank quite dilute whiskey almost from breakfast. Whenever I've tried such a thing I find I need to go to bed before lunch.
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
Churchill reputedly drank quite dilute whiskey almost from breakfast. Whenever I've tried such a thing I find I need to go to bed before lunch.
But did you get up again at six and start again?
Not at all. Delilah had me entertained sufficiently to stay in bed all day. (PS Unfortunately this isn't actually true)
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
Who was doing the shouting if he was drinking alone? And he wasn't the one with the short temper, apparently.
The Guardian quotes from the tape; Boris shouting "get off my fucking laptop!"
Two MPs disqualified in the 1920s stood again with the blessing of their party.
Evening Sunil - I haven't had chance to update you on my yellow pen antics last week:
Reedham to Lowestoft Norwich to Sheringham
Getting further and further south!
I did both in 2016. Still Scotland north of the Central Belt (plus Stranraer) left to do! Plus a few weekend only routes in England. And Crossrail still hasn't opened yet
Two MPs disqualified in the 1920s stood again with the blessing of their party.
Evening Sunil - I haven't had chance to update you on my yellow pen antics last week:
Reedham to Lowestoft Norwich to Sheringham
Getting further and further south!
I did both in 2016. Still Scotland north of the Central Belt (plus Stranraer) left to do! Plus a few weekend only routes in England. And Crossrail still hasn't opened yet
You're sadly going to be saying that last sentence for a long time ... (And I bet it'll be followed by: "And Crossrail still hasn't ,i>fully opened yet" for a long time after.
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
Who was doing the shouting if he was drinking alone? And he wasn't the one with the short temper, apparently.
The Guardian quotes from the tape; Boris shouting "get off my fucking laptop!"
Carrie was 'screaming at Boris to get out of the house' and after Boris spilt red wine on the sofa said 'you have no care for anything because you are spoiled.'
Two MPs disqualified in the 1920s stood again with the blessing of their party.
Evening Sunil - I haven't had chance to update you on my yellow pen antics last week:
Reedham to Lowestoft Norwich to Sheringham
Getting further and further south!
I did both in 2016. Still Scotland north of the Central Belt (plus Stranraer) left to do! Plus a few weekend only routes in England. And Crossrail still hasn't opened yet
You're sadly going to be saying that last sentence for a long time ... (And I bet it'll be followed by: "And Crossrail still hasn't ,i>fully opened yet" for a long time after.
And the Northern Line extension! And the Overground to Barking Riverside!
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
Churchill reputedly drank quite dilute whiskey almost from breakfast. Whenever I've tried such a thing I find I need to go to bed before lunch.
But did you get up again at six and start again?
Not at all. Delilah had me entertained sufficiently to stay in bed all day. (PS Unfortunately this isn't actually true)
I never start before five and give up by seven after my four a day.
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
Churchill reputedly drank quite dilute whiskey almost from breakfast. Whenever I've tried such a thing I find I need to go to bed before lunch.
Iirc, Churchill did have a nap in the middle of the day.
Two MPs disqualified in the 1920s stood again with the blessing of their party.
Evening Sunil - I haven't had chance to update you on my yellow pen antics last week:
Reedham to Lowestoft Norwich to Sheringham
Getting further and further south!
I did both in 2016. Still Scotland north of the Central Belt (plus Stranraer) left to do! Plus a few weekend only routes in England. And Crossrail still hasn't opened yet
I've done everything north of the Central Belt, including the curve avoiding Inverness station! And Stranraer - twice.
All a row over Boris spilling wine on the sofa as I already pointed out before, no action taken, no complaint by either party, neighbour likely a Remainer
Yes, nothing to see here. Kind of thing that occurred between Theresa and Philip all the time.
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
Who was doing the shouting if he was drinking alone? And he wasn't the one with the short temper, apparently.
The Guardian quotes from the tape; Boris shouting "get off my fucking laptop!"
Carrie was 'screaming at Boris to get out of the house' and after Boris spilt red wine on the sofa said 'you have no care for anything because you are spoiled.'
Sounds more like a 1970s sitcom than anything!
That it? His girlfriend shouted at him because he spilled red wine on her (I assume) sofa?
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
Who was doing the shouting if he was drinking alone? And he wasn't the one with the short temper, apparently.
The Guardian quotes from the tape; Boris shouting "get off my fucking laptop!"
Carrie was 'screaming at Boris to get out of the house' and after Boris spilt red wine on the sofa said 'you have no care for anything because you are spoiled.'
All a row over Boris spilling wine on the sofa as I already pointed out before, no action taken, no complaint by either party, neighbour likely a Remainer
Yes, nothing to see here. Kind of thing that occurred between Theresa and Philip all the time.
Martha and George (Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf)
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
Who was doing the shouting if he was drinking alone? And he wasn't the one with the short temper, apparently.
The Guardian quotes from the tape; Boris shouting "get off my fucking laptop!"
Carrie was 'screaming at Boris to get out of the house' and after Boris spilt red wine on the sofa said 'you have no care for anything because you are spoiled.'
Sounds more like a 1970s sitcom than anything!
I think it amusing! I don't think it will hurt him with Tory members who are overwhelmingly male and getting on a bit. Now if recordings of perverted sex are realised to the media it might cause him harm should they exist but to be completely cynical how do we know this was not manufactured? Recording a neighbour and one that is an influential figure seems too coincidental to me given the leadership election!
And now we have Hunt saying that Davies is an honest man. Well, no, not really: not if he was fiddling his expenses.
What Hunt said was "Whatever the rights and wrongs of his expenses claim, I have only ever known Chris Davies as a decent and honest man and a very diligent local MP. My thoughts with him and his family today".
That is more nuanced. It sounds more like sympathy for a doomed colleague. It doesn't say he is honest -- it says I have only known him as honest. Quite a difference.
It is possible to have some sympathy for Chris Huhne, brought down by a stupid, perjorious lie.
And it is easy to find statements made by LibDem MPs akin to Hunt's at the time of Huhne's downfall.
All a row over Boris spilling wine on the sofa as I already pointed out before, no action taken, no complaint by either party, neighbour likely a Remainer
Yes, nothing to see here. Kind of thing that occurred between Theresa and Philip all the time.
Martha and George (Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf)
Isn't the essential point of WAOVW that they have grown together over the years and cannot realistically leave each other? Which, with the best will in the world, I find difficult to believe of Boris.
All a row over Boris spilling wine on the sofa as I already pointed out before, no action taken, no complaint by either party, neighbour likely a Remainer
Yes, nothing to see here. Kind of thing that occurred between Theresa and Philip all the time.
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
Who was doing the shouting if he was drinking alone? And he wasn't the one with the short temper, apparently.
The Guardian quotes from the tape; Boris shouting "get off my fucking laptop!"
Carrie was 'screaming at Boris to get out of the house' and after Boris spilt red wine on the sofa said 'you have no care for anything because you are spoiled.'
All a row over Boris spilling wine on the sofa as I already pointed out before, no action taken, no complaint by either party, neighbour likely a Remainer
Yes, nothing to see here. Kind of thing that occurred between Theresa and Philip all the time.
Martha and George (Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf)
Isn't the essential point of WAOVW that they have grown together over the years and cannot realistically leave each other? Which, with the best will in the world, I find difficult to believe of Boris.
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
Who was doing the shouting if he was drinking alone? And he wasn't the one with the short temper, apparently.
The Guardian quotes from the tape; Boris shouting "get off my fucking laptop!"
Carrie was 'screaming at Boris to get out of the house' and after Boris spilt red wine on the sofa said 'you have no care for anything because you are spoiled.'
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
Who was doing the shouting if he was drinking alone? And he wasn't the one with the short temper, apparently.
The Guardian quotes from the tape; Boris shouting "get off my fucking laptop!"
Carrie was 'screaming at Boris to get out of the house' and after Boris spilt red wine on the sofa said 'you have no care for anything because you are spoiled.'
Sounds more like a 1970s sitcom than anything!
That it? His girlfriend shouted at him because he spilled red wine on her (I assume) sofa?
All a row over Boris spilling wine on the sofa as I already pointed out before, no action taken, no complaint by either party, neighbour likely a Remainer
Yes, nothing to see here. Kind of thing that occurred between Theresa and Philip all the time.
Martha and George (Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf)
Isn't the essential point of WAOVW that they have grown together over the years and cannot realistically leave each other? Which, with the best will in the world, I find difficult to believe of Boris.
Believe in Boris, man!
My belief in Boris is deep, sincere, and wide-ranging...
And now we have Hunt saying that Davies is an honest man. Well, no, not really: not if he was fiddling his expenses.
What Hunt said was "Whatever the rights and wrongs of his expenses claim, I have only ever known Chris Davies as a decent and honest man and a very diligent local MP. My thoughts with him and his family today".
That is more nuanced. It sounds more like sympathy for a doomed colleague. It doesn't say he is honest -- it says I have only known him as honest. Quite a difference.
It is possible to have some sympathy for Chris Hahne, brought down by a stupid, perjorious lie.
And it is easy to find statements made by LibDem MPs akin to Hunt's at the time of Huhne's downfall.
Nonetheless, Hunt now knows that Davies was not honest in relation to his expenses. And note that he talks about "whatever the rights and wrongs of his expenses claim" as if this was in doubt, as if it was not clear that he committed an offence. It sounds as if he is implying that he thinks that Davies didn't really do a bad thing at all. It's a bit weaselly and combined with the "I've only known him as honest" it all adds up to a general "well this wasn't really very bad, hardly a crime at all, in fact" sort of justification.
It's not the size of the fraud which matters. It's the fact that Davies' instinct was to cheat and lie and at no point, if that was his first instinct, did he check himself or apparently think "No, I should not be doing this."
So - sympathy aside - the question remains: why is it right for the Tory party to be represented by a man who, objectively, has behaved in a dishonest way? And what does that say about those who think this is OK?
And now we have Hunt saying that Davies is an honest man. Well, no, not really: not if he was fiddling his expenses.
What Hunt said was "Whatever the rights and wrongs of his expenses claim, I have only ever known Chris Davies as a decent and honest man and a very diligent local MP. My thoughts with him and his family today".
That is more nuanced. It sounds more like sympathy for a doomed colleague. It doesn't say he is honest -- it says I have only known him as honest. Quite a difference.
It is possible to have some sympathy for Chris Huhne, brought down by a stupid, perjorious lie.
And it is easy to find statements made by LibDem MPs akin to Hunt's at the time of Huhne's downfall.
I don't believe that you should stand for public office if you have black marks against your name. If there are issues that might come to light that are equivocal then you should clear them up or make them public before (or whilst) you run. Nobody should be asked to vote for you on a false pretext.
I find it interesting that Boris was drinking red wine on his own!
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
Who was doing the shouting if he was drinking alone? And he wasn't the one with the short temper, apparently.
The Guardian quotes from the tape; Boris shouting "get off my fucking laptop!"
Carrie was 'screaming at Boris to get out of the house' and after Boris spilt red wine on the sofa said 'you have no care for anything because you are spoiled.'
Sounds more like a 1970s sitcom than anything!
That it? His girlfriend shouted at him because he spilled red wine on her (I assume) sofa?
All a row over Boris spilling wine on the sofa as I already pointed out before, no action taken, no complaint by either party, neighbour likely a Remainer
Yes, nothing to see here. Kind of thing that occurred between Theresa and Philip all the time.
Or Layla Moran and Richard.
You're right to compare the two cases. That pretty much cost Layla her chances of leading her party ...
What a bizarre decision by the Tories to support Davies .
Surely they’d have a better chance with a new candidate . Not a very good look . If you cheat your expenses working for a company you get fired . If you’re a Tory MP you get full backing and some guff about him being a decent honest man who just happened to fiddle his expenses .
We’ve had alternative facts , alternative truth, now alternative honesty !
And now we have Hunt saying that Davies is an honest man. Well, no, not really: not if he was fiddling his expenses.
What Hunt said was "Whatever the rights and wrongs of his expenses claim, I have only ever known Chris Davies as a decent and honest man and a very diligent local MP. My thoughts with him and his family today".
That is more nuanced. It sounds more like sympathy for a doomed colleague. It doesn't say he is honest -- it says I have only known him as honest. Quite a difference.
It is possible to have some sympathy for Chris Hahne, brought down by a stupid, perjorious lie.
And it is easy to find statements made by LibDem MPs akin to Hunt's at the time of Huhne's downfall.
Nonetheless, Hunt now knows that Davies was not honest in relation to his expenses. And note that he talks about "whatever the rights and wrongs of his expenses claim" as if this was in doubt, as if it was not clear that he committed an offence. It sounds as if he is implying that he thinks that Davies didn't really do a bad thing at all. It's a bit weaselly and combined with the "I've only known him as honest" it all adds up to a general "well this wasn't really very bad, hardly a crime at all, in fact" sort of justification.
It's not the size of the fraud which matters. It's the fact that Davies' instinct was to cheat and lie and at no point, if that was his first instinct, did he check himself or apparently think "No, I should not be doing this."
So - sympathy aside - the question remains: why is it right for the Tory party to be represented by a man who, objectively, has behaved in a dishonest way? And what does that say about those who think this is OK?
Davies has been booted out.
We do not know that the Tory party will stick with him, we only have Davies' word for it.
IMO, the Tory party should choose another candidate. Certainly, if the Tory party want to hold the seat, then they must choose another candidate.
That said, it is perfectly possible for Hunt to state that in his dealings with him, Davies has been honest. The final line "My thoughts with him and his family" gives a hint as to the personal catastrophe that has engulfed Davies.
I personally did not like Chris Huhne, but I could certainly feel sorrow at the personal catastrophe that engulfed him.
And now we have Hunt saying that Davies is an honest man. Well, no, not really: not if he was fiddling his expenses.
What Hunt said was "Whatever the rights and wrongs of his expenses claim, I have only ever known Chris Davies as a decent and honest man and a very diligent local MP. My thoughts with him and his family today".
That is more nuanced. It sounds more like sympathy for a doomed colleague. It doesn't say he is honest -- it says I have only known him as honest. Quite a difference.
It is possible to have some sympathy for Chris Huhne, brought down by a stupid, perjorious lie.
And it is easy to find statements made by LibDem MPs akin to Hunt's at the time of Huhne's downfall.
I don't believe that you should stand for public office if you have black marks against your name. If there are issues that might come to light that are equivocal then you should clear them up or make them public before (or whilst) you run. Nobody should be asked to vote for you on a false pretext.
The thing about politics is it attracts risk takers who don't think they will be caught out. That said the queue to be an MP is very long and a cull of fibbers would do no harm. How would you define a black mark against somebodies name though? Behaviour unless it is criminal is subjective to the norms people work with. What seems immoral to one person could just as easily be sharp practice by another person and not immoral....
A busy day for me and just a couple of observations (no more):
1) I glanced at the Mark Field video at the Mansion House dinner. It looked like something out of the Handmaid's Tale with all the Gilead commanders meeting. I can imagine John McDonnell being comfortable in that environment oddly enough - as for Liz Truss, as Chancellor in a Johnson Government and assuming she makes it to the 2020 Mansion House speech, well, she might be the only woman in the room.
2) As for B&R, I've already suggested the LDs cannot afford to be complacent. As for the recall petition, HYUFD seems to assume the 10,005 who signed it must be all non-Tories. I doubt it. While fully appreciating there are several orders of magnitude difference, the fact remains as far as the recall mechanism is concerned, Chris Davies is no different to Fiona Onasanya.
The provisions under Section 1 of the Act equate a conviction of making fraudulent expense claims to a conviction for any offence with a custodial sentence of less than 12 months. That seems bizarre to me and an over-reaction to the events of 2009. What Onasanya did was infinitely worse than anything Davies did but in essence the recall provision makes no difference.
I do think in this instance justifiable public concern was mixed with a tinge of over-reaction to create bad legislation and it needs to be revisited.
And now we have Hunt saying that Davies is an honest man. Well, no, not really: not if he was fiddling his expenses.
What Hunt said was "Whatever the rights and wrongs of his expenses claim, I have only ever known Chris Davies as a decent and honest man and a very diligent local MP. My thoughts with him and his family today".
That is more nuanced. It sounds more like sympathy for a doomed colleague. It doesn't say he is honest -- it says I have only known him as honest. Quite a difference.
It is possible to have some sympathy for Chris Hahne, brought down by a stupid, perjorious lie.
And it is easy to find statements made by LibDem MPs akin to Hunt's at the time of Huhne's downfall.
Nonetheless, Hunt now knows that Davies was not honest in relation to his expenses. And note that he talks about "whatever the rights and wrongs of his expenses claim" as if this was in doubt, as if it was not clear that he committed an offence. It sounds as if he is implying that he thinks that Davies didn't really do a bad thing at all. It's a bit weaselly and combined with the "I've only known him as honest" it all adds up to a general "well this wasn't really very bad, hardly a crime at all, in fact" sort of justification.
It's not the size of the fraud which matters. It's the fact that Davies' instinct was to cheat and lie and at no point, if that was his first instinct, did he check himself or apparently think "No, I should not be doing this."
So - sympathy aside - the question remains: why is it right for the Tory party to be represented by a man who, objectively, has behaved in a dishonest way? And what does that say about those who think this is OK?
Davies has been booted out.
We do not know that the Tory party will stick with him, we only have Davies' word for it.
IMO, the Tory party should choose another candidate. Certainly, if the Tory party want to hold the seat, then they must choose another candidate.
That said, it is perfectly possible for Hunt to state that in his dealings with him, Davies has been honest. The final line "My thoughts with him and his family" gives a hint as to the personal catastrophe that has engulfed Davies.
I personally did not like Chris Huhne, but I could certainly feel sorrow at the personal catastrophe that engulfed him.
Hunt's sympathy for the man and his family speak well of him on a personal level. But personal emotion should not cloud judgment about what the right thing to do here is. Like you I would have thought it wise to have a candidate who understands the importance of honesty and integrity.
I did not have sympathy for Huhne. But that was mainly because my children knew his son so had another private perspective on the matter.
If the protestors is correct that Mark Field said "This is what happens when people like you disturb our dinner" to her then that would make his statement that he was worried she might be armed a complete lie.
What a bizarre decision by the Tories to support Davies .
Surely they’d have a better chance with a new candidate . Not a very good look . If you cheat your expenses working for a company you get fired . If you’re a Tory MP you get full backing and some guff about him being a decent honest man who just happened to fiddle his expenses .
We’ve had alternative facts , alternative truth, now alternative honesty !
I suggested earlier that it might be a better bet for the Torres to make the election about the ‘trivial nature’ of the offense rather than the current political situation. They haven’t adopted him yet so we will have to see.
If the protestors is correct that Mark Field said "This is what happens when people like you disturb our dinner" to her then that would make his statement that he was worried she might be armed a complete lie.
Not necessarily.
Expert (I know - experts) on R4 said he’d have had the woman in an armlock.
And now we have Hunt saying that Davies is an honest man. Well, no, not really: not if he was fiddling his expenses.
What Hunt said was "Whatever the rights and wrongs of his expenses claim, I have only ever known Chris Davies as a decent and honest man and a very diligent local MP. My thoughts with him and his family today".
That is more nuanced. It sounds more like sympathy for a doomed colleague. It doesn't say he is honest -- it says I have only known him as honest. Quite a difference.
It is possible to have some sympathy for Chris Huhne, brought down by a stupid, perjorious lie.
And it is easy to find statements made by LibDem MPs akin to Hunt's at the time of Huhne's downfall.
I don't believe that you should stand for public office if you have black marks against your name. If there are issues that might come to light that are equivocal then you should clear them up or make them public before (or whilst) you run. Nobody should be asked to vote for you on a false pretext.
The thing about politics is it attracts risk takers who don't think they will be caught out. That said the queue to be an MP is very long and a cull of fibbers would do no harm. How would you define a black mark against somebodies name though? Behaviour unless it is criminal is subjective to the norms people work with. What seems immoral to one person could just as easily be sharp practice by another person and not immoral....
I'd define it as what you see as a black mark against you.
Two things - the 'crime' and the perception of crime. If standing for poitcial office you need to explain both things. A mass-murderer might not be imprisoned, but he's going to have a tough time getting through the perception of him as a bad person.
Two MPs disqualified in the 1920s stood again with the blessing of their party.
Evening Sunil - I haven't had chance to update you on my yellow pen antics last week:
Reedham to Lowestoft Norwich to Sheringham
Getting further and further south!
I did both in 2016. Still Scotland north of the Central Belt (plus Stranraer) left to do! Plus a few weekend only routes in England. And Crossrail still hasn't opened yet
I've done everything north of the Central Belt, including the curve avoiding Inverness station! And Stranraer - twice.
I've done the curves avoiding Carmarthen and Swansea - plus the Swansea District completely by-passing the area.
What a bizarre decision by the Tories to support Davies .
Surely they’d have a better chance with a new candidate . Not a very good look . If you cheat your expenses working for a company you get fired . If you’re a Tory MP you get full backing and some guff about him being a decent honest man who just happened to fiddle his expenses .
We’ve had alternative facts , alternative truth, now alternative honesty !
Two MPs disqualified in the 1920s stood again at the ensuing by-elections with the blessing of their party. William Preston in 1927 (Walsall), and John Jacob Astor in 1924 (Dover). Astor was unopposed.
Hunt can’t win unless Bozo actually pulled out of the leadership contest .
At this point the membership would vote for him regardless of almost anything . His girlfriend could end up with a black eye and the death cult would still be singing his praises .
Hunt's sympathy for the man and his family speak well of him on a personal level. But personal emotion should not cloud judgment about what the right thing to do here is. Like you I would have thought it wise to have a candidate who understands the importance of honesty and integrity.
I did not have sympathy for Huhne. But that was mainly because my children knew his son so had another private perspective on the matter.
The saddest part of the Pryce trial was the texts between Huhne and his son. They should never, ever have been made public, never, ever have been published in the press.
Those texts were for the eyes of Chris Huhne and his son alone.
They are truly heart-breaking.
If you don't have sympathy for Huhne and his son after those terrible texts, well then ... you are harder-hearted than I am.
Rather than getting upset Carrie needed baking soda and white vinegar... And lots of it!
What did BoJo expect after dumping or being dumped by Marina, brighter and better looking than Boris and a real leaver to boot.
If Boris becomes PM, he is likely to be targeted by honeytraps IMO. He does not seem to be able to resist. I doubt he will be like JFK, where staffers go out looking for prostitutes he can do the business with but I think he is clearly a danger to himself when offered the chance of some skirt.
What a bizarre decision by the Tories to support Davies .
Surely they’d have a better chance with a new candidate . Not a very good look . If you cheat your expenses working for a company you get fired . If you’re a Tory MP you get full backing and some guff about him being a decent honest man who just happened to fiddle his expenses .
We’ve had alternative facts , alternative truth, now alternative honesty !
I suggested earlier that it might be a better bet for the Torres to make the election about the ‘trivial nature’ of the offense rather than the current political situation. They haven’t adopted him yet so we will have to see.
Aaargh!!!! Fraud is never a trivial offence, no matter how little is defrauded. Never.
You're going to get my rant on this, my specialist subject. Sorry.
This is what I have written elsewhere, in relation to banking. It applies just as politics, to any sector, frankly. If the Tories don't get this, refuse to get this, they really are the pits.
"Fraud is damaging because it is so corrosive of the trust that is the essence of banking, that is – or should be – at the heart of any working environment, at the heart of any good relationship with colleagues, bosses, clients, the public, at the heart of any well-functioning community. Fraud breaks those bonds of trust.
When someone is trusted and they let you down by lying, by cheating, by taking advantage, by behaving like Adoboli did, like many other fraudsters have done, real people are hurt. Worse – the very idea of having confidence – in the institution, in your colleagues, in banking as a dependable underpinning of our society – is damaged and takes time to rebuild.
A fraudster does not just destroy their own reputation. Their actions chip away at the reputation of everyone else in their sector. And they make it just that bit harder for those people – however good, however hard-working, however trustworthy – to be trusted by others, by the public.
That is the real harm that fraud does. We would do well to take it more seriously than we do."
Hunt's sympathy for the man and his family speak well of him on a personal level. But personal emotion should not cloud judgment about what the right thing to do here is. Like you I would have thought it wise to have a candidate who understands the importance of honesty and integrity.
I did not have sympathy for Huhne. But that was mainly because my children knew his son so had another private perspective on the matter.
The saddest part of the Pryce trial was the texts between Huhne and his son. They should never, ever have been made public, never, ever have been published in the press.
Those texts were for the eyes of Chris Huhne and his son alone.
They are truly heart-breaking.
If you don't have sympathy for Huhne and his son after those terrible texts, well then ... you are harder-hearted than I am.
I had a great deal of sympathy for the son, as I have said. Those texts were made public because of the way Huhne allowed his case to be presented. Unforgivable. He was the grown up but did not behave like one.
What a bizarre decision by the Tories to support Davies .
Surely they’d have a better chance with a new candidate . Not a very good look . If you cheat your expenses working for a company you get fired . If you’re a Tory MP you get full backing and some guff about him being a decent honest man who just happened to fiddle his expenses .
We’ve had alternative facts , alternative truth, now alternative honesty !
I suggested earlier that it might be a better bet for the Torres to make the election about the ‘trivial nature’ of the offense rather than the current political situation. They haven’t adopted him yet so we will have to see.
Aaargh!!!! Fraud is never a trivial offence, no matter how little is defrauded. Never.
You're going to get my rant on this, my specialist subject. Sorry.
This is what I have written elsewhere, in relation to banking. It applies just as politics, to any sector, frankly. If the Tories don't get this, refuse to get this, they really are the pits.
"Fraud is damaging because it is so corrosive of the trust that is the essence of banking, that is – or should be – at the heart of any working environment, at the heart of any good relationship with colleagues, bosses, clients, the public, at the heart of any well-functioning community. Fraud breaks those bonds of trust.
When someone is trusted and they let you down by lying, by cheating, by taking advantage, by behaving like Adoboli did, like many other fraudsters have done, real people are hurt. Worse – the very idea of having confidence – in the institution, in your colleagues, in banking as a dependable underpinning of our society – is damaged and takes time to rebuild.
A fraudster does not just destroy their own reputation. Their actions chip away at the reputation of everyone else in their sector. And they make it just that bit harder for those people – however good, however hard-working, however trustworthy – to be trusted by others, by the public.
That is the real harm that fraud does. We would do well to take it more seriously than we do."
If you followed the earlier posts you would see that I was in no was supporting his fraud. I put the trivial in quotes to imply it was not trivial but could be used as a better defense of the seat than trying to support the current conservative government.
We’ve had alternative facts , alternative truth, now alternative honesty !
I suggested earlier that it might be a better bet for the Torres to make the election about the ‘trivial nature’ of the offense rather than the current political situation. They haven’t adopted him yet so we will have to see.
Aaargh!!!! Fraud is never a trivial offence, no matter how little is defrauded. Never.
You're going to get my rant on this, my specialist subject. Sorry.
This is what I have written elsewhere, in relation to banking. It applies just as politics, to any sector, frankly. If the Tories don't get this, refuse to get this, they really are the pits.
"Fraud is damaging because it is so corrosive of the trust that is the essence of banking, that is – or should be – at the heart of any working environment, at the heart of any good relationship with colleagues, bosses, clients, the public, at the heart of any well-functioning community. Fraud breaks those bonds of trust.
When someone is trusted and they let you down by lying, by cheating, by taking advantage, by behaving like Adoboli did, like many other fraudsters have done, real people are hurt. Worse – the very idea of having confidence – in the institution, in your colleagues, in banking as a dependable underpinning of our society – is damaged and takes time to rebuild.
A fraudster does not just destroy their own reputation. Their actions chip away at the reputation of everyone else in their sector. And they make it just that bit harder for those people – however good, however hard-working, however trustworthy – to be trusted by others, by the public.
That is the real harm that fraud does. We would do well to take it more seriously than we do."
If you followed the earlier posts you would see that I was in no was supporting his fraud. I put the trivial in quotes to imply it was not trivial but could be used as a better defense of the seat than trying to support the current conservative government.
It's the Tories I'm disappointed at. Not you. It would be nice if people and organisations in public life at least tried to have some standards of integrity. I mean, couldn't they at least try?
I mean, really: please elect this guy 'cos he's only a trivial fraudster and we'd rather not talk about anything else important. Is that what politics is now reduced to?
It is top news in the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Telegraph and The Sun. Basically the Brexit supporting media! The way it is presented as the female shouting "get off me" will not do Boris any good. Even if you apply the theory that any publicity is good I don't think something that could be interpreted as domestic violence/coercive control given recent legislation helps him!
It is top news in the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Telegraph and The Sun. Basically the Brexit supporting media! The way it is presented as the female shouting "get off me" will not do Boris any good. Even if you apply the theory that any publicity is good I don't think something that could be interpreted as domestic violence given recent legislation helps him!
Well yes police being called to Boris Johnson's home after a midnight "fracas" with his partner is bound to be big news...
We shall have to wait and see what he's got to say for himself...
What a bizarre decision by the Tories to support Davies .
Surely they’d have a better chance with a new candidate . Not a very good look . If you cheat your expenses working for a company you get fired . If you’re a Tory MP you get full backing and some guff about him being a decent honest man who just happened to fiddle his expenses .
We’ve had alternative facts , alternative truth, now alternative honesty !
I suggested earlier that it might be a better bet for the Torres to make the election about the ‘trivial nature’ of the offense rather than the current political situation. They haven’t adopted him yet so we will have to see.
Aaargh!!!! Fraud is never a trivial offence, no matter how little is defrauded. Never.
You're going to get my rant on this, my specialist subject. Sorry.
This is what I have written elsewhere, in relation to banking. It applies just as politics, to any sector, frankly. If the Tories don't get this, refuse to get this, they really are the pits.
"Fraud is damaging because it is so corrosive of the trust that is the essence of banking, that is – or should be – at the heart of any working environment, at the heart of any good relationship with colleagues, bosses, clients, the public, at the heart of any well-functioning community. Fraud breaks those bonds of trust.
When someone is trusted and they let you down by lying, by cheating, by taking advantage, by behaving like Adoboli did, like many other fraudsters have done, real people are hurt. Worse – the very idea of having confidence – in the institution, in your colleagues, in banking as a dependable underpinning of our society – is damaged and takes time to rebuild.
A fraudster does not just destroy their own reputation. Their actions chip away at the reputation of everyone else in their sector. And they make it just that bit harder for those people – however good, however hard-working, however trustworthy – to be trusted by others, by the public.
That is the real harm that fraud does. We would do well to take it more seriously than we do."
And sometimes - MPs’ expenses, for instance - we take it very seriously indeed.
It is remarkable how haphazardly we apply standards.
Comments
Gove over, you are taking the Michael with that remark.
I commented then -
"But the moral – however harsh it may seem – is that, ultimately, a professional – or someone aspiring to be one – is responsible for their own actions, that they need to do the right thing even if this prejudices their personal position and that acting dishonestly but saying to yourself “I’m not a dishonest person” may be comforting but is still a dangerous self-deception. It is our actions that make us what we are."
And now we have Hunt saying that Davies is an honest man. Well, no, not really: not if he was fiddling his expenses.
I know I sound ludicrously old-fashioned. But is it too much to expect MPs to have some semblance of integrity, to understand that fraud - even if it is for a small amount - is wrong and not something to be shrugged off or excused or waved away? They talk about trust over Brexit but don't seem to realise that trust can be eroded by just these sorts of evasions and lies and dishonesties carried out by people who make the laws for the rest of us, who are paid to exercise their judgment, who are well paid and who have not the same excuses as others might for chiselling cheating conduct.
Many of our MPs seem to be quite thick. Must they also be dishonest as well?
Gove 70 now
Maybe there is more similarity between Johnson and Churchill than I initially thought!
The row is nothing but it shows he is not even tempered outside the public gaze and might have implications for his decision making qualities. Hunt in contrast seems like an ice king in comparison!
This reminds me of when Gordon Brown was said to have shoved a secretary out of his way to get on a computer. It did little harm to Brown and some even thought it was funny, I remember a Japanese media outlet did a cartoon version of it!
The main difference between the two is Boris does better with working class voters. If we leave the EU in October a Boris led Tory Party gets 34% with C2DEs and a Hunt led Tories gets 27% and if we have not left the EU in October a Boris led Tory Party gets 19% with C2DEs and a Hunt led Tories gets 15%.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/06/21/delivering-brexit-will-do-more-boost-conservative-
And it is extraordinary that those who identify as ‘conservatives’ should take the opposite view.
Reedham to Lowestoft
Norwich to Sheringham
(PS Unfortunately this isn't actually true)
I did both in 2016. Still Scotland north of the Central Belt (plus Stranraer) left to do! Plus a few weekend only routes in England. And Crossrail still hasn't opened yet
(And I bet it'll be followed by: "And Crossrail still hasn't ,i>fully opened yet" for a long time after.
Sounds more like a 1970s sitcom than anything!
And the Overground to Barking Riverside!
ps. @The_Taxman - I think it was Taiwanese
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/7301768/Gordon-Browns-bullying-digitally-recreated-in-Taiwanese-news-footage.html
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1142097162748215296?s=19
Double points if it was either of you though
That is more nuanced. It sounds more like sympathy for a doomed colleague. It doesn't say he is honest -- it says I have only known him as honest. Quite a difference.
It is possible to have some sympathy for Chris Huhne, brought down by a stupid, perjorious lie.
And it is easy to find statements made by LibDem MPs akin to Hunt's at the time of Huhne's downfall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-hWE1H4geQ
It's not the size of the fraud which matters. It's the fact that Davies' instinct was to cheat and lie and at no point, if that was his first instinct, did he check himself or apparently think "No, I should not be doing this."
So - sympathy aside - the question remains: why is it right for the Tory party to be represented by a man who, objectively, has behaved in a dishonest way? And what does that say about those who think this is OK?
You're right to compare the two cases. That pretty much cost Layla her chances of leading her party ...
Gove to the new Department of Deep Coal Mine Investigation.
Truss, Stewart, McVey all benefitting.
Surely they’d have a better chance with a new candidate . Not a very good look . If you cheat your expenses working for a company you get fired . If you’re a Tory MP you get full backing and some guff about him being a decent honest man who just happened to fiddle his expenses .
We’ve had alternative facts , alternative truth, now alternative honesty !
We do not know that the Tory party will stick with him, we only have Davies' word for it.
IMO, the Tory party should choose another candidate. Certainly, if the Tory party want to hold the seat, then they must choose another candidate.
That said, it is perfectly possible for Hunt to state that in his dealings with him, Davies has been honest. The final line "My thoughts with him and his family" gives a hint as to the personal catastrophe that has engulfed Davies.
I personally did not like Chris Huhne, but I could certainly feel sorrow at the personal catastrophe that engulfed him.
All those who laid at 1.09 feeling good about themselves (I did not)
A busy day for me and just a couple of observations (no more):
1) I glanced at the Mark Field video at the Mansion House dinner. It looked like something out of the Handmaid's Tale with all the Gilead commanders meeting. I can imagine John McDonnell being comfortable in that environment oddly enough - as for Liz Truss, as Chancellor in a Johnson Government and assuming she makes it to the 2020 Mansion House speech, well, she might be the only woman in the room.
2) As for B&R, I've already suggested the LDs cannot afford to be complacent. As for the recall petition, HYUFD seems to assume the 10,005 who signed it must be all non-Tories. I doubt it. While fully appreciating there are several orders of magnitude difference, the fact remains as far as the recall mechanism is concerned, Chris Davies is no different to Fiona Onasanya.
The provisions under Section 1 of the Act equate a conviction of making fraudulent expense claims to a conviction for any offence with a custodial sentence of less than 12 months. That seems bizarre to me and an over-reaction to the events of 2009. What Onasanya did was infinitely worse than anything Davies did but in essence the recall provision makes no difference.
I do think in this instance justifiable public concern was mixed with a tinge of over-reaction to create bad legislation and it needs to be revisited.
I did not have sympathy for Huhne. But that was mainly because my children knew his son so had another private perspective on the matter.
Expert (I know - experts) on R4 said he’d have had the woman in an armlock.
Two things - the 'crime' and the perception of crime. If standing for poitcial office you need to explain both things. A mass-murderer might not be imprisoned, but he's going to have a tough time getting through the perception of him as a bad person.
At this point the membership would vote for him regardless of almost anything . His girlfriend could end up with a black eye and the death cult would still be singing his praises .
Those texts were for the eyes of Chris Huhne and his son alone.
They are truly heart-breaking.
If you don't have sympathy for Huhne and his son after those terrible texts, well then ... you are harder-hearted than I am.
You're going to get my rant on this, my specialist subject. Sorry.
This is what I have written elsewhere, in relation to banking. It applies just as politics, to any sector, frankly. If the Tories don't get this, refuse to get this, they really are the pits.
"Fraud is damaging because it is so corrosive of the trust that is the essence of banking, that is – or should be – at the heart of any working environment, at the heart of any good relationship with colleagues, bosses, clients, the public, at the heart of any well-functioning community. Fraud breaks those bonds of trust.
When someone is trusted and they let you down by lying, by cheating, by taking advantage, by behaving like Adoboli did, like many other fraudsters have done, real people are hurt. Worse – the very idea of having confidence – in the institution, in your colleagues, in banking as a dependable underpinning of our society – is damaged and takes time to rebuild.
A fraudster does not just destroy their own reputation. Their actions chip away at the reputation of everyone else in their sector. And they make it just that bit harder for those people – however good, however hard-working, however trustworthy – to be trusted by others, by the public.
That is the real harm that fraud does. We would do well to take it more seriously than we do."
I mean, really: please elect this guy 'cos he's only a trivial fraudster and we'd rather not talk about anything else important. Is that what politics is now reduced to?
Yes. Apparently.
FFS!
We shall have to wait and see what he's got to say for himself...
It is remarkable how haphazardly we apply standards.
(Which will necessitate a change of avatar, dammit.)
I must start following our venerable host’s tips more often....