politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Damian Green goes that could put massive pressure on the PM
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Damian Green goes that could put massive pressure on the PM
Getting closer to TMay. Damian Green, her deputy & long standing Oxford friend being investigatedhttps://t.co/FhqNllVt4z pic.twitter.com/Lz4k3NVT9N
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Versus
Labour scandal: a party alleged to be engaged in covering up rape.
Hmmm.
https://www.kdnuggets.com/2017/10/alphago-zero-biggest-ai-advance.html?utm_content=buffer62fae&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
The famous Tory spreadsheet looks like a damp squib, most of the allegations are either already in the public domain or about activity by consenting adults on an equal footing. I was expecting at least a couple of Monica Lewinskis to be honest.
The allegation by Bex Bailey on the Labour side, that’s altogether more serious and I hope the police investigate as well as the party.
I also hope that Miss Bailey isn’t the only woman to come forward from politics with a serious allegation, she’s been incredibly brave and doesn’t deserve to stand alone.
What we have with Green is a very trivial allegation against a very serious politician.
Labour have a very serious allegation against an un-named and quite possibly very trivial politician.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/31/westminster-staffer-says-she-was-sexually-assaulted-by-mp
Nobody is being named, and that includes the party, nor is there enough information to even begin to guess at who the alleged attacker is (probably deliberately).
If however this one is substantiated it would be the most serious in terms of its potential political impact, because rather unusually it was only the party that could have imposed any meaningful sanction and they clearly failed to do so.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41827264
Apart from one or two MPs where there might be a pattern of behaviour, most of the stuff was very trivial - or embarrassing - or already known..
The Tories used to do proper sex scandals!
Glamorous models, foreign diplomats, romps in football strips, ghastly accidents.
By a wide margin the Labour story is the most alarming (not that I think other parties might not have had similar 'for the good of the party, in your own long-term interests' conversations) - that did shock me.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41821671
As Ms V says, not a lot to see here, apart from Miss B.
That is all Starmer wants, for HMG to public the proof and therefore accept that no deal is not as various cabinet ministers suggest a glorious British future but is actually us fucked. This is hardly a revelation to the opposing negotiators, they already know this. We aren't tipping them a hand or handing them power in the to and fro, we're setting our internal parameters around what we are negotiating and WHY.
Because the alternative is clear. "The EU were holding out for an extra £10bn and we said no deal, aren't we marvellous". / "Erm no, we could afford that £10bn more than we can afford the economic crisis you've caused by no deal"
Difficult to name the MP in this case without naming the accuser, and the incident occurred abroad so British police can’t do anything. Sadly anonymous allegations against anonymous MPs are destined to go nowhere.
These reports should be classified as Cabinet papers and slapped with the 30 years rule.
And even if Starmer 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
So we have a single source has told Letts that an unnamed official in the Speaker's office might have intervened and if so then it might have been for or against Labour.
What the country needs is to punch the likes of Davis and Johnson hard enough to wake them from their delusion. We have to have a deal. And that's not a recipe for writing a blank cheque, it's an invitation to re-examine all the other options. Leaving the EU does not mean we have to leave the EEA or our senses.
So either the article is wrong or the police are for it too.
More likely I think that the clerks provided advice - which I think is fine.
This example is unusually theoretical, but I think it holds good.
I suppose we get the politicians we deserve. Perhaps if we paid a LOT more for the job we might get people who don't make use feel the need to turn our heads aside and quietly puke into a bag.
Unconvinced this will be particularly groundbreaking stuff but anyway...
"Parliament's rulebook Erskine May states that each House has the power to call for the production of papers through an address to the sovereign, but notes that the procedure has been used rarely since the middle of the 19th century."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-using-obscure-parliamentary-rule-11445034
Surely making these subject to the same rules as cabinet papers proper solves the problem and makes Labour look opportunist? Win Win.
What is being hidden is being done so for domestic political reasons.
It's just political theatre from Labour, so that they can say - the government's own advice says this will be bad etc. etc.
What we might achieve is revealing shocking things that Davis et al refuse to accept that forces them to grow up and negotiate an actual deal. The EU would prefer our post-Brexit relations with them to closely resemble now, allowing their significant interests in the UK to continue unimpeded.
The reality check is that our loons believe the power gauge is over on our side - they need us more than we need them, BMW will force Merkel to force Barnier to roll over. The reality is that the EU can't give ground on their rules and principles to get an unimpeded position - it's too high a cost. That our side refuse to face that is the crisis, we can't afford to be "surprised" by chaos and collapse in April 19 or "shocked" when the documents then leak and demonstrate the government were told this would happen
I think you should change your name to Felis Domesticus!
(Although you're probably right in both the fact and the implication.)
Have a good day everyone.
Mr. Meeks, cheers for posting that. As others have indicated, the suggestion was no police action occurred because it happened abroad.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/my-month-in-kim-kardashians-korset-w0zw0cb30
It is happening, we need the best deal possible. Starter is free to ask for the papers but he is not the government
Not the ability to endanger our negotiations with what will soon be a foreign power.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/whos-who-tory-dossier-36-11445592.amp
These aren't state secrets. It's not how much cash we have in the bank that's asked to be published. It's basic economics. Anyone with a brain can predict the impact of what the EU rules mandate them to do with no deal. Our problem is that our negotiators and their cheerleaders have chosen to ignore these basic facts for political reasons.
Evidently you're utterly muddleheaded and providing a post hoc justification for your irrational hatred of the EU.
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/925458607621017600
As Ms Maltby said, "this is hardly the most terrible thing that has happened to a woman..." - but getting [what appears to an uninformed observer to be]* a come on ("having admired you in a corset, I feel compelled...etc") from a friend and contemporary of your parents is just a bit creepy.
I really don't think it's a resignation issue, and I would be fairly amazed if that were to happen, but I have little doubt that Mrs. May is going to think 'eew' every so often, when she looks at him across the cabinet table....
* qualification inserted to make it clear I have no idea if this was Mr. Green's intention, or whether he's just a bit thick.
Labour's behaviour on the EU suggests they see it as the Conservatives versus the EU, and if they can make hay in domestic politics by playing silly buggers over this then they're happy to do so.
An EEA type agreement is about the only deal that could be wrapped before the deadline. Its about time our side were honest with the people.
I think it's all unnecessary anyway - suspect the Govt will win the vote today.
Not that I think the Mirror is!
FFS.....
But nakedly partisan moves to get negotiation papers in the public domain deserve to be called out for what they are.
Labour, on the other hand, are supposed to offer this wonderful new view, sat up their on their high horse, surveying the moral high ground....
They will have experts for all of the sectors mentioned, who work on trade deals for a living and have a lot more experience than the people on our side.
It's not going to be a surprise to them to learn our assessment of the impact of losing financial passporting for instance. It's probably pretty much the same as their assessment.
If the govt are really worried - I suppose they could offer to share the papers with selected Labour MPs.
Everything the Conservatives do wrong confirms the pre-existing notion they're just out for themselves.
Right now, the rape story is 6th on the BBC Politics website. The potential knee-touching + text story is top. You might argue that's because the latter is only emerging, but that doesn't justify why the rape story is so far down the pecking order.
Requesting them to be made public is just trying to stir up trouble.
This feels like the mid nineties - sleaze sleaze sleaze, and instead of having a basically sensible Labour PM in waiting we've got f*cking Corbyn who is going to cost alot of jobs.
It is NOT in any way, shape, or form behaviour that can be likened to that of Weinstein. Well, not until you get onto allegations of rape. And nobody is suggesting that is something any party would turn a blind eye to.
Oh.
(1) No leader or party can hope to keep the entire party, or even the entire Parliamentary party, free of dubious sexual activity and in some cases misuse of power. The actions of any individual Minister or party official can't reasonably be blamed on anyone except those individuals.
(2) However, anyone who is the subject of unwanted attentions beyond a trivial level needs to feel that by complaining they will deter the offender (with resignation or prosecution where appropriate) without any adverse consequences for themselves. None of the parties have up to now made this sufficiently clear.
I don't think any of us can profitably try to make it a party issue, frankly.
If Starmer wants to read them then there’s ways that can happen such as the Privy Council, but that’s not what he wants. Labour’s duplicity on the EU issue is becoming more obvious and I can’t imagine that they’ll generate much public support for trying to trash the negotiations.
Or maybe they’re just trying to change the subject from a rape allegation against a senior party official?
But support for this an is on the wane. Both the Guardian and Telegraph style guides, as well as the Oxford Dictionary, advocate using a when the h is pronounced at all (‘a hotel, a historian’). And etymologist Michael Quinion, himself a self-confessed ‘old-fashioned’ an user, points out younger people’s preference for a.
But fogies with a fondness for an can at least still count on The Times style guide (‘prefer an hotel to a hotel, an historic to a historic, an heroic rather than a heroic’). And Fowler’s Modern English Usage kindly acknowledges that ‘the choice of form remains open’.
http://www.writing-skills.com/hit-or-myth-use-an-before-h-words
I do not see David Davis as PM but JRM could come through but expect it will be someone off the radar at present
But if theyve been given advice that parliament , via the opposition requesting, can demand this too, then fair enough. If it's a rule it's a rule. If parliament or the law permits them to classify them to stop that too, that too is not impacting the soverienty.