Liar, liar, pants on fire!

I am sure that many politicians are "economical with the truth" at times but Esther McVey has committed the cardinal sin of being found out - hence the apology.

GillT, sadly you have to be able to prove 'wilfully' and that I suspect will be impossible.

Varian, yes the apology is required because it is accepted that she did not 'wilfully' or deliberately mislead Parliament. She is required to apologies and correct at the earliest opportunity, which she has done.

Unless you as I thought you did from your earlier post, know something we don't.

MaizieD's post tells us what we need to know:

MaizieD Wed 04-Jul-18 17:07:45
Ministerial Code: Section 1.3c

^c. It is of paramount importance that Ministers give
accurate and truthful information to Parliament,
correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest
opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead
Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to
the Prime Minister;^

Clearly the Speaker believes that Esther McVey's breech of Parliamentary behaviour falls into the lesser category, since he has allowed "correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity."

Well resigning or sacking cannot be on the cards as TM needs all her ministers right now. They can get away with anything it strikes me, look at Boris .

"jura2 Wed 04-Jul-18 17:38:27
it is sadly, all linked. And the lies are not lost on the EU population, the world at large, World TV and Press."

Jura can you explain what you mean by "it is sadly, all linked".
What is linked?

Who has read the full text of the NAO letter? This is part of it:

Our report was fully agreed with senior officials in your Department [for Work and Pensions]. It is based on the most accurate and up-to-date information from your department. Your department confirmed this to me in writing on Wednesday 6 June and we then reached final agreement on the report on Friday 8 June.

It is odd that by Friday 15 June you felt able to say that the NAO [National Audit Office] “did not take into account the impact of our recent changes”. You reiterated these statements on 2 July, but we have seen no evidence of such impacts or fresh information.

I’m afraid your statement on 2 July that the NAO was concerned universal credit is currently “rolling but too slowly” and needs to “continue at a faster rate” is also not correct. While we recognise regrettable early delays to universal credit, my recommendation made clearly on page 11 of the report is that the department must now ensure it is ready before it starts to transfer people over from previous benefits.

I’m also afraid that your statement in response to my report claiming universal credit is working has not been proven. The department has not measured how many universal credit claimants are having difficulties and hardship.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/04/amyas-morse-auditor-general-universal-credit-letter-esther-mcvey

If the first two were 'inadvertent' she is incompetent... Though the first looks strangely like a lie to me..

Let’s face no one will care that a minister is lying. They won’t care that the leave campaign lied and broke electoral law either.

Jura2 also I am having difficulty finding in the European news anything about Esther McVey. Can you direct me to the sources you have quoted, I would like to see how it is being presented.

GillT57

The first of your links won't work for me. However, the second says it all. It confirms that the utter contempt with which both this, and the previous, Conservative Government have treated the electorate continues. Lies, lies and more lies!

I really wish that the Labour Party would get its act together. I am not anti Corbyn, but surely he and his chief supporters can see that if they haven't managed to get enough support by now to seriously challenge these last two lying, incompetent governments, they never will. Time for another change of leadership!

So I take it allyg that you do not value honesty in a Government Minister and are quite happy to believe that her lies were “inadvertent”? Even when, assuming that as the Government Minister responsible she must have read the report, she had obviously known that she was lying?

The Government has proven here that it has very low standards of integrity and honesty. Sadly we have come to expect this from the current Government.

suzied I can't agree with you that "no one will care that a minister is lying". I know lots of people, including me who care very much that these days lying seem to be considered the norm in many area's of general society and acceptable, as a way of convincing others that they are right, when they are wrong.
One only has to look around the organised groups such as the press, media and activist's political groups of all shades, all put what they euphemistically call 'spin' on their view, their message. No one knows these days, what is true or false, and fake. Therefore mistrust is rampant, across society, and with all Politicians, even medical people are no longer trusted I saw in a report some time ago. What a society!
So I care very much if anyone lies to me.

So any one who represents the people in either House is expected to be honest, and in that I include not lying. Now having said that, there is many a slip twix cup and lip, and before I jump to condemn Esther McVey in this case, even though I have read MaizieD's kind paste of the letter from the NAO, my instinct tells me that I will wait, there is more to come from Esther McVey's team on the timing of those communications. I know how slow information exchange is in Whitehall, not because I have worked there (before you jump}, but because I know someone who did. Those dates in the letter by official department standards are very close. I suspect, that with the time delays in the corridors of power, that Esther McVey will be able to prove that her department did not have or did not pass on that information to her office prior to her speech in Parliament. Before we get the guillotine out, the clay bacci pipe and the knitting let's just wait. I suspect more will be revealed in response to the NAO letter.

In the meantime, the Speaker, has accepted that Esther McVey is only guilty of the lesser breech of inadvertently misleading Parliament, with the sanction of apology at the earliest opportunity, which has been done.

So, as Mr Speaker would say "Order, Order. Calm yourselves".

Mostly I think my earlier post makes my position not this very clear.

Maisie what a leap. "The Government has proven here that it has very low standards of integrity and honesty. Sadly we have come to expect this from the current Government".

First, as the Speaker has accepted, Esther McVey has "inadvertently mislead Parliament" she has had the sanction of coming back to the House to apologies and correct. This has been done. How you get from that, to the whole Government "has very low standards of integrity and honesty", is really putting some spin on it.

My view of our Government could not be farther from your view. What I see is a Government that has honoured, and held inviolate the democracy of this Country, under the most enormous pressure, lies, personal attacks, unfounded organised rumour. They are admired by many for the fortitude, the integrity and the downright strength of character to implement the democratic vote of the people of this Country.

Just a note for Mostly, sorry my post should have said, "Mostly, I think my earlier post makes my position very clear.

allyg apologies if you don’t read the newspapers so have not read about the lies from Boris, sexual misbehaviour of Damien Green, the hypocrisy of Jacob Rees-Mogg, the cover ups from Andrea Leadsom and Theresa May at the Home Office, the threats and plots from the Brexiteers, the Brexit lies from Gove ........ and so on and so on.
You defend the lack of integrity within the Government
- thereby condoning it.

Allygran, the lies in general over past 2 years. You are correct, those particular ones have not yet been reported in EU yet.

What I see is a Government that has honoured, and held inviolate the democracy of this Country,

I'm not sure that you and I have the same understanding of 'the democracy of this country'. ally.

Mostly
We talked about spin earlier, you have just shown how that can be done, a Master class in spin.

My post is clear. No further explanation is needed.

MaizieD, I sincerely hope not.

we have Parliamentary Democracy, which is totally different to Direct Democracy ... this our British History, tradition and culture (and totally different to Swiss one..)...

but whatever form of Democracy, it can never ever be based on who spends the most money, from doubtful sources, to get the most influence, tell the more lies, deceive the most, manipulate the masses the most ... THAT can never represent Democracy ... and when this happens in other larts of the world, we are all up in arms and ‘disgusted from To/u/bridge ... quite rightly.

Allygran1
My view of our Government could not be farther from your view. [...]. They are admired by many for the fortitude, the integrity and the downright strength of character to implement the democratic vote of the people of this Country.

Integrity??? The way I, and many others, see it, the very fact that they granted us a referendum is a sign of their contempt for us - it was obvious from the start that they didn't think there was a cat in Hell 's chance of a leave vote. They saw it as a sure fire way to both put an end to the troublesome issue, and at the same time present themselves as champions of democracy.

As for what you see as 'strength of character', I see as a sign of their weakness, as they fight tooth and nail for their political life! Their primary concern is to save their own skins, while what is best for the country comes a poor second best.

I wholeheartedly agree with one thing you said though: "My view of our Government could not be farther from your view."

Ally have you read the whole of the NAO letter? You do realise how unprecedented it is that a letter like this was written?

The Royal We allyg? You make a lot of pompous assumptions.
So you don’t even accept that Conservative ministers have lied even when they have admitted it? Or when they have resigned over it (Damien Green, Andrea Leadsom)? Or when it’s been proven by independent sources?
In fact you clearly condone their lack of integrity.
You sound just like Trump forever railing at the media and fake news!

but whatever form of Democracy, it can never ever be based on who spends the most money, from doubtful sources, to get the most influence, tell the more lies, deceive the most, manipulate the masses the most ... THAT can never represent Democracy ... and when this happens in other larts of the world, we are all up in arms and ‘disgusted from To/u/bridge ... quite rightly
With all due respect, I fail to follow what this is about.
I find myself in the ambivalent position of agreeing with OP that McVey has proved herself woefully short of the standards required of a Minister, but totally at odds with some of the inconsequential and specious arguments which seem to be springing out of the discussion.
I suspect that’s what happens with moving goalposts (if I may employ a footballing metaphor ? ⚽️)
And Jura whatever has “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells” (if that is what you meant to say) got to do with anything here?

Perhaps people might like to watch this:

videos.files.wordpress.com/IIsNki6F/mcvey-2-lies-uc_hd.mp4

And this:

videos.files.wordpress.com/GNxJKzt4/mcvey-misleading-apology_hd.mp4