Keith Vaz

It's a disgrace. He is dishonest!

Why us he dishonest?

He lied to his wife and family for a start but there are other questions over his behaviour that were well documented on here.

We do not know he lied to his wife, his wife said she didn't know but was staying with him , perhaps she didn't know, perhaps she did

I think it is a very weird decision but if the Labour Party are happy for his name to be associated with the Justice Committee then so be it.

I do wonder if the Labour Party may regret their decision in the future as Vaz carries too much baggage.

If he resigned as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee using his own words :-

"It is in the best interest of the home affairs select committee that its important work can be conducted without any distractions whatsoever. I am genuinely sorry that recent events make it impossible for this to happen if I remain chair. "

It begs the question what makes this valid point made by the man himself less worthy if he sits on the Justice Committee?.

The man is certainly thick skinned and never shows any sign of honest contrition and lord knows he has plenty of history to beg another question if either The Home Affairs Committee or The Justice Committee were/are a wise choice to position Keith Vaz.

I wonder who the MP's were who nominated him for both positions,?

POGS - didn't Conservative MPs support him as well, some of whom were ministers?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/02/tories-questions-support-keith-vaz-justice-committee-appointment?client=safari

He was voted for by the house not the Labour Party alone

POGS, his statement refers to the distraction , press etc, not his actions

Anniebach

Nominations are predominantly put forward by the Political Parties themselves for their own MP's. The seat left on the Justice Committee was a ' Labour Party' seat.

Nomination requirements

To be valid, nominations must:

Contain a signed statement made by the candidate declaring their willingness to stand

Be accompanied by the signatures of 15 MPs elected to the Commons ' AS MEMBERS OF THE SAME POLITICL PARTY 'as the candidate (or 10 per cent of the MPs elected to the House of that party, whichever is the lower). More than 15 signatures can be collected but only the first 15 valid signatures are printed.

Nominations may be accompanied by the signatures of up to five MPs elected to the House as members of any party other than to which the chair is allocated or of no party. Similarly, only five such signatures are printed.

Candidates must declare 'ANY RELATIVE INTERSTS' with their nomination.

As for your link Rigby 46 that was not a vote of confidence in Keith Vaz! It was more to do with parliamentary precedence. A vote was allowed to basically vote 'No Confidence' in the nomination of Vaz to the Justice Committee. It went in Keith Vaz favour not because they though he was a good nomination but if this became a precedent then every time somebody took umbrage with a nomination they could be given a vote of 'No Confidence' willy nilly and it could easily become a political tool to use against the opposition party.

So it was the decision of the Labour Party to allow his nomination .

Perhaps this explains it better.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-parliaments-37859080

extract

"The normal deal is that the political parties in the Commons choose the MPs who are nominated to their party quota on select committees, by their own internal process, and the other parties automatically approve their choice.

The argument is that if the parties start tinkering with each other's nominations, that way, madness lies. So no fan clubs were involved in the making of this particular appointment,".

Covers both points, the nomination system and why the Tory vote was not a vote of confidence in Vaz but all about parliamentary precedence.

Anniebach

POGS, his statement refers to the distraction , press etc, not his actions.

Could be but if that how some perceive his statement it amplifies my point the man is thick skinned and never shows signs of any honest contrition.

Keith Vaz | News & politics | Grandparents forum - talk to other ...
Well, he's got friends in high places: Jeremy Corbyn has claimed allegations that influential Labour MP Keith Vaz paid male escorts for sex are ...
www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and.../a1229540-Keith-Vaz

We have been here before and I suppose you either find him wanting or agreeable.

You takes your pick.

I find him wanting, that's for sure.Very thick skinned ( and that's the kind interpretation.) He is arrogance on a stick.

That's what I think too roses but I was being circumspect!

My error on the voting POGS. Thanks

Cannot read the Corbyn link , well choose not to, he is the biggest hypocrite in politics in my opinion

I just cannot condemn Vaz for being bi sexual or homosexual , makes no difference if he is arrogant or not.

I can't imagine that a tory MP would get let off so lightly..

Don't condemn him fir either but I do condemn home for being dishonest and there are lots of questions about things in his past which appear to be not quite right!

Not thick skinned, just has no shame.

His history in Leicester and elsewhere (which I understand is to be believed) is just a catalogue of disgraceful behaviour.

Anniebach

Nobody cares if Vaz is heterosexual, bi sexual or homosexual.

I disagree POGS, how many MP's have had affairs or one night stands, how many have been filmed in the act ?

Anniebach

In one post you state you cannot condemn Vaz for being bi sexual or homosexual. Nobody has condemned him by the way .

I state nobody cares if Vaz is bi sexual or homosexual, implying that is not the issue.

You now post you don't agree with my comment and go on to further imply we should care.

Keith Vaz is going to be investigated about drugs offences.
Presumably now, he will have to leave the Justice Committee.